# Talk:Transport in Penang

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transport in Penang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LibStar (talk · contribs) 22:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I will review this article. Please add comments to the review when items have been fixed. I am not a fan of striking through the text, as it make the review difficult to read at a later date, and it forms an important document for the review process.  Bob1960evens (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Bob1960evens for taking up this review. I was the one who originally rewrote much of this article, so I'll be taking up the amendments. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)


### General
The article reads well. I have done a quick review of some of the references, and they appear to support the text, but there are a number of multi-page pdf files, and these need page numbers, to show where the supporting information is in the file. Thus ref 29 "Urban Transport Study in Greater Metropolitan Areas of George Town, Butterworth and Bukit Mertajam, Malaysia: Progress Report (Phase 1)" has 107 pages, and ref 3 "Negotiating Identities and 'Sense of Place' in a World Heritage City: The Case of George Town, Penang, Malaysia" has 351 pages, but both only support one sentence. There are other similar refs. You may like to start working on resolving this issue.
 Fixed Page numbers added for those citations.


### Road transport
The public buses section mentions that trolleybuses had replaced tramlines by 1936. This suggests that some mention of trams ought to be included. The title of Francis & Ganley (2006) suggests it might have some information, and Zhao et al (2018) has some details of horse, steam and electric trams. A couple of sentences should suffice.
I'm rather unsure on this, as this article is angled towards present-day developments in transport, hence the little coverage on historical aspects such as the trams, which have been defunct since 1936. Could George Town's trams be split into a separate article instead? Seeing that there is another article about trolleybuses.
I am sure that an article could be written about the trams, but I still think it needs a brief mention here. The article mentions roads from 1786, and expansion under the British. It mentions trolleybuses from 1925 to 1961. Most public transportation has a history, and there is nothing in the title of the article to show that this is only about modern transport in Penang. As I say, it only needs a brief mention, to give the modern developments some context. It comes under the "Broad in its coverage" part of the requirements for GA.
 Fixed Alright. I have added a few paras on the early rail systems in Penang, which include tramlines in George Town that were in use between 1880s and 1936.
Bicycles section has LinkBike operated a fleet of 250 bicycles across 29 stations in the city. "Across" needs replacing with something more sensible. Presumably you can borrow a bike from one of the 29 stations?
 Fixed Rewritten prose


### Ports and harbours
Penang was once a crucial British entrepôt, needs a little explanation, because entrepôt is such an unusualy word. We want readers to keep on reading our article, rather than clicking on entrepôt and not coming back.
 Fixed Switched to "trading port"


### Rapid transit systems
In 2009, the state government activated a committee. "Activated" is not a good word choice here. Suggest "appointed" or similar.
 Fixed Rewritten as suggested


### References
Ref 2 (Zhao 2018) is a 16-page pdf and needs a page number
 Fixed
Ref 6 (Annual Report 2021) is a 172-page pdf and needs a page number
 Fixed
Ref 7 (Statistik Jalan Edisi 2024) only supports 2 sentences, but refers to 76 pages of a pdf. Can it be a bit more specific?
 Fixed
Ref 8 (The Proposed Pan Island Link 1 Highway Project, Penang). I cannot load this, the title should be in Title Case, not block capitals, and it is a 16-page pdf. There is a copy on the Wayback Machine, which you could link.
 Fixed
Ref 9 (Statistik Jalan (Edisi 2013)) supports a single sentence, but refers to 48 pages of a pdf. Can it be more specific?
 Fixed Replaced with Ref 7.
Ref 10 (Mak Hoy Ken 2014) is a 71-page pdf and needs a page number
 Fixed
Ref 12 (Rapid KL solution for Penang bus woes) appears to be dead
 Fixed Replaced website
Ref 14 (Sharom 2014) is a 35-page pdf and needs a page number
 Fixed
Ref 21 (Joshua Woo Sze Zeng 2020) is a 21-page pdf and needs a page number. Also, is uses last=Joshua Woo Sze Zeng. This should presumably be last=Zeng |first=Joshua Woo Sze, or similar.
 Fixed
Ref 31 (Rancangan Fizikal Negara...) is a 24-page pdf and needs a page number, plus a lang=Malay?
 Fixed
Ref 34 (Penang Tourism Master Plan 2021-2030) is a 274-page pdf and needs a page number
 Fixed
Ref 49 (Mesyuarat Pertama Penggal...) needs title in Title Case, not block capitals
 Fixed
Ref 50 (Penang Urban Transport Study...) is a 64-page pdf and needs a page number
 Fixed
Ref 52 (Enabling Decentralisation...) is a 45-page pdf and needs a page number, and a date=2022 (judging by the url)
 Fixed
Ref 57 (Malaysia transportation statistics 2020) is a 96-page pdf and needs a page number
 Fixed


### The formal bit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
See comments above
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
See comments above

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
See comments above
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Back soon. I just need to check the referencing more thoroughly. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Nearly there. I have added a list of refs that need attention, and thoughts on trams. In view of the speedy response you have made to the review so far, I will not put it on hold unless there are delays in addressing the final few issues. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Will need some time to check out the refs, since I’m juggling commitments and issues at the moment. Appreciate the patience here. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
That's fine. I appreciate that real life issues are more important. Well done on what you have fixed so far. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Amendments to refs completed. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I have checked the updated refs, and have now completed the GA assessment. I am pleased to say that the article meets the criteria, so am awarding it good article status. Well done, and keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
TYSM for taking the time to review too! hundenvonPG (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)