Talk:Delhi Metro

203.187.237.153, I have reverted your change. The official website says this line is not yet fully complete. Please provide reference otherwise. - Ganeshk 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The line is actually complete, and trains have been running (sans passengers) for a while. Formal inauguration was supposed to happen today (). Does anyone know if it really happened? deeptrivia (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it was indeed inaugurated today: . Shifting to "completed" category. deeptrivia (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There were supposed to be two phases of the metro. I think, with the completion of line 3, the Phase I is over, and the phase II has started (to be completed by 2010 commonwealth games). These details can be mentioned. deeptrivia (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For the map displayed of all metro lines underconstruction, the map is missing RK Ashram Marg between Jhandewalan and Rajiv Chowk stations on the blue line. Survivorfreak (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I got this response from Ashish Vashisht:

From Ashish Vashisht Tue Jan 3 20:32:49 2006

X-Apparently-To:	**********[.at.]yahoo.com via 206.190.38.174; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:32:59 -0800
X-Originating-IP:	[206.190.49.178]
Return-Path:	<***********[.at.]yahoo.com>
Authentication-Results:	mta121.mail.dcn.yahoo.com from=yahoo.com; domainkeys=pass (ok)
Received:	from 206.190.49.178 (HELO web54608.mail.yahoo.com) (206.190.49.178) by mta121.mail.dcn.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 03   Jan 2006 20:32:59 -0800
Received:	(qmail 68955 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Jan 2006 04:32:49 -0000
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;   h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;  b=tNN1/paQPa7SLvG3IbAD7Qz2KL+p0FB6ndbdxl1/5KCXWhgFZnWRgvJV1Q7qqcCS12/I5WfNAfWd3t+jxzxuD/0G0Sn6c2WrEL0Hf3zMskqhSIFvwOw/vAfsBRA/jJSAcjWPk2rYHy1xXS7yiUQq0LfaxrWyfw6282Ab4vdwA1Q=  ;
Message-ID:	<20060104043249.68953.qmail@web54608.mail.yahoo.com>
Received:	from [68.48.7.207] by web54608.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:32:49 PST
Date:	Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:32:49 -0800 (PST)
From:	Send an Instant Message "Ashish Vashisht" <****************[a.t.]yahoo.com>  Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Learn more
Subject:	Re: [delhimetro] Delhi Metro is now the collaboration of the week!
To:	 <**********[.a.t.]yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To:	<20060104040042.69236.qmail@web51305.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Content-Type:	text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:	8bit
Content-Length:	839

Hello,

I allow you to use my photographs from the IRFCA website under the
Creative Commons Attribution (by), Non Commercial (nc), No Derivative
Works (nd) License on Wikipedia.

You should also write to the webmaster at IRFCA informing him that you
will be copying some of the image files from his server, and for
permission to re-use those files. The email address is:
webmaster[a.t.]irfca.org

Ashish

I'll write to the webmaster, and then I guess we can use all those images. deeptrivia (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ashish, According to the IRFCA website, Line 2 is the 'Blue Line' and Line 3 is 'Yellow line'. I am quoting a few lines from that page,

"Construction on the underground Line 2 (the 'Blue Line') was at an advanced stage by [1/03]. Both..."

"Line 3 (the 'Yellow Line') running Indraprastha - Barakhamba Road - Dwarka - Dwarka Sub City was recently [2003] approved by the Central and State governments."

Is the website wrong? - Ganeshk 01:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Signage on the Metro itself is definitely the other way around. Jpatokal 10:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the article from the Indian Express which gives the correct colours. This information can also be verified from first person accounts on the Delhi Metro discussion group archives. The info on IRFCA website needs to be corrected.

I believe DMRC is somewhat guilty of creating this number vs. colour confusion. They started out giving numbers for each lines, however after the Line 2 (or Yellow Line) was opened, they changed the lines to have distinct colours instead of numbers. Unfortunately the DMRC website does not provide this information at this point. By the way, as most Delhi residents would know, the private buses in Delhi have also had various colourful names such as Red Line, Blue Line etc. --vashisht 02:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the names of line articles should be changed to refer to the colors: this is in accordance with actual signage on the Metro, and it'll save a lot of renaming work when the next extension opens. Red Line (Delhi Metro) would be unambiguous and in line with current practice (see Red Line). Jpatokal 10:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jpatokal 15:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"It became the second rapid transit system in India, after the one in operation in Kolkata."

says the article. however the second one to open in india was chennai's mass rapid transport system. delhi's is the second underground network to open in india —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.16.138.242 (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

-- What's a mass transport system then? Even Mumbai's rail network should be considered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.89.156 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

any notes on the amount of tax payers money that has been burnt to build this monstrosity? 15L is probably what mumbai harbor line carries in half a day!

"The system turned an operational profit from the first day. ", "The 650,000 passengers we carry each day means 40,000 less vehicles on Delhi roads,"

The back of my envelope says that if those 40000 vehicles were cars (and considering the number of passengers, more likely buses), the value of this is $200million a year (given than a car costs $5000 a year to run). That's not including the road costs, health costs, air pollution costs etc. Alternatively, we can use $0.5 per passenger mile(the largest amount deductable - actual cost is more like $1.2/pm), assume that the trips are all 2 miles and get $650000 a day in economic value ($237 million a year). The interest on $2.4billion is about $72million (3%), so it's clear to me that this is an economically sensible investment. --Jaded-view (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I blv you are comparing the system with other other forms of transportation. The original post is asking it versus existing mass transit systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.194 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=173 a good reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.194 (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious reference, overhead lines are by no means obsolete, just like bridges aren't obsolete, nor freeway flyovers (given the three times cost increase to go underground, it is wise economics to go overhead... The very thing the original poster was complaining about). You can't compare against existing system which have been in place for over a hundred years - it takes many years for people to adjust to any new transport system, especially one that involves a mode shift. 650000 people per day is a reasonable number for any transport system. Perhaps you can find a more objective assessment? You might compare to the cost of building a freeway in the same city, and the number of people that serves.--Jaded-view (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is really not very useful unless it has reliable reporting on both constuction/start-up and maintenance costs. And info on subsidies required. ericbritton (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Incorporated a section on this, will expand as more information becomes available. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where does this "Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System" name come from? As far as I can see, the Delhi Metro website consistently uses the name "Delhi Metro", and it's certainly the more common name per WP:NAME. I will move the article back unless there are objections. Jpatokal (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

yup, its better to move it to delhi metro. Bharathmeister (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Delhi Metro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comment: Funding section conviniently forgets to mention Japan's contribution. Looks like someone went to great lengths to remove any mention of Japan's role in funding the metro. A real shame since the metro would probably not be there without Japan's contribtuion. 65.51.218.48 (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The above comment was made by an anonymous editor. Since a user account is required to conduct a review, I have left the comments as such, which could still be utilized to improve the article further, but the review is still open and seeking a valid reviewer. WTF? (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article seems a bit short, and lacks some coverage of some areas I would like to see more about. Two articles I would recommend to look at for examples of good metro articles is SkyTrain (Vancouver) and Copenhagen Metro. In particular, the lead is far to short, history section "stops" in 2002, and the network section needs to be expanded considerably. There are also a few MOS and other issues as mentioned below.

Comments

• The lead is very short, see WP:LEAD. It should give a good summary of the article, not just a few lines.

Expanded. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Do not put company names in italics; see WP:ITALICS.

 Done --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• In the infobox, locale should also mention the country

 Done --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Avoid links that link back to this article, such as 'DMRC'.

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Do not force image sizes; do to accessibility reasons, some people may want larger or smaller images as set in the preferences.

 Done --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding ref 8 (as used in the history section), this is not how referencing is done on Wikipedia. Since it is a 15-page article, it is not necessary to include pages; however, if you want to, create a 'bibliography' section under the references, put the article there, and use separate ref to denote the exact pages.

 Done Page reference dropped. Intentionally done as a seperate edit in case anyone disagrees. -MK 10:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But please clarify as to how else the {{Rp}} template is to be used. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The history section is fine, but stops abruptly in 2002. The history should continue past the opening of Phase I, and explain further planning and construction.

Further construction, planning etc. has been described in the Network section. Is it necessary to repeat it here? SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• All values need to be converted to imperial units (don't blame me, but the Americans don't understand international standards). Use {{convert}} for easy conversion; this also applies to tables.

 Done Conversions in tables left out as it clutters up the tables (as in Vancouver Skytrain) but the figures (along with conversions) have been mentioned in the write-ups on each line. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The network section is too thin. Take a look at the network section in the SkyTrain article, or the route section in the Copenhagen article. In both cases there is a multi-paragraph description of the route/network. The route should be described in addition to the technical aspects (gauge, power supply etc).

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Large parts of the network section is referenced.

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Avoid the use of boldface within the tables.

Couldn't find any. Can you please provide one instance. I can cover the rest --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Use an endash (–), not a hyphen (-), when saying "from/to" or "between", see WP:DASH.

 Done --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would have right-aligned the map and placed it at the top of the network section.

 Done -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why is there one section with "future extensions" and one for "route under construction"? All future plans should be placed in the same section.

 Done -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Never use 'crore' on Wikipedia. While common in India and a few surrounding countries, no-one has ever heard of it in Europe or North America. Stick to common terms like thousand, million and billion. Also, do not use Rs., but the ISO code 'INR'. Conversion to US$ can be very biased and can fluctuate a lot; the current conversion has too many significant digits, and I would advise to avoid currency conversions at all (though I will not hold that against the article as part of the GA review).

The conversion template {{INRConvert}} uses "Rs" - I've requested for it to be fixed. Also, the original sources in some places use crore, and WP:ENGVAR seems to suggest that it is fine. Further, conversions to millions/billions have been provided in each instance of crore 's use. I've also added {{Indian English}} to the talk page, to clarify matters. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Never use an ampersand (&) in prose; use 'and'.

 Done Couldn't find any. Perhaps already fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't need to link to English; and if you do, don't link to 'British English', but 'English language'.

 Done -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is this to say that Google Transit is the only source to navigation information?

No, it just happens to one of the sources on which information was available. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Either under network or operations, could there be a section about stations, sticking the list of stations in a {{main}} template?

 Done No separate stations, but link to the list provided. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The security section isn't referenced.

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The ticketing system needs to be slightly revamped, removing boldface.

 Done Was already fixed -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• File:Delhi metro smart card.jpg is clearly copyrighted by the Delhi Metro. Mark it as such, and add a free use rationale, and I will permit its use here, although it is a border-line case.

The photograph was taken by another user and licensed under GFDL - can I make changes to the license? SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• File:Delhi metro token.jpg is very bad quality; not only does the token only take up a small fraction of the image, but the image is underlit, and therefore has very low quality, making it impossible to see any details of the token itself. I would recommend that the image simply be removed from the article.

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Am I to understand correctly that there is no monthly pass or similar? This may be the case, just not the way I'm used to things being.

Yes, there is no monthly pass. Smart cards (mentioned in the article) are available for longer durations of travel. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, a hyphen cannot be used for punctuation. Chose between an endash and an emdahs, see WP:DASH.

 Done -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps 'safety' is a better word than 'issues'.

Sections reorganised. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• If using US date syntax, there is always a comma (or period) after the year, not just before (i.e. Month DD, YYYY, ) Similarly, never put a -th ending on the day.

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I honestly don't think these malfunctioning train incidents are notable. Crashes resulting in a write-off or non-suicide fatalities would be, but not otherwise.

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• 'Phase I' is a proper noun, and should always be capitalized.

 Done Could not find any instances. May have been previously fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• '3.2 metre' should have a hyphen in it. As it also should be converted, use {{convert|3.2|m|adj=on}}

 Done Fixed previously. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Feel free to make separate article about the two classes of rolling stock. (not a GA criteria at all, just an idea).
• Avoid 'at present' and similar. Instead, use 'as of 2010' or similar.

 Done Fixed previously. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• The last ref under 'rolling stock' is a bare link.

 Done fixed that and other free formatted refs using cite-web. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• 'automatic train control' is a common noun and should not be capitalized. The corresponding article should be moved as well.

 Done already fixed. Not sure if moving corresp article should be in scope here. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• 'TETRA' should not be in italics, nor anything else in italics in that section.

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The 'Delhi Metro in popular culture' is at the verge of the limits, see WP:TRIVIA. In general, just being featured in a movie is not sufficient for mention, but if there is an film which centers around the system, then it might be worth mentioning, albeit perhaps in the history section. The bit about filming and cost could go into the operations section. Mention of particular films might be worthy of inclusion on the articles on each station.

Mention of specific films removed, general vital information retained. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Remove the 'see also' entries, as they are all either mentioned in the prose, or in the navboxes.

 Done already fixed -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• 'Badarpur' and 'Ghaziabad' link to disambiguation pages.

 Done --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Link 22 is dead (see here)

 Done No dead links found -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• A number of the references are not up to standard: bare links are not good enough.

 Done Fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Italics should only be used for magazines and newspapers; just state DMRC, not "official website of DMRC".

 Done pre-fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• External links two and three are not really acceptable. Feel free to include them as relevant references.

 Done pre-fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, very interesting and well-written article, although somewhat short in some places. I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Most issues have been addressed, and I've raised a couple of queries. Could you please clarify my doubts and verify whether the changes are up to the mark? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for the late reply. The lead is still rather short; a more appropriate length would be similar to that of Copenhagen Metro. Btw, you don't have to reference information in the lead if it is mentioned other-place in the article. My main concern about the lead is that it presents a lot of less relevant information (that the Kolkata came first, who opened the line etc) while leaving out important information such as length, which boroughs/areas it serves, technical summary perhaps (voltage, power output), and mention all the lines, current and future. 'Rapid transit' should be linked at first mention and avoid using 'currently' in prose (unless referring to now, but not in the past; rather than now, but no in the future).

 Done --WorLD8115(TalK) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the ticket image, you (or anyone else) than DMRC cannot say "I'm author of this picture." if you take a ticket and scan it. Clearly it is a copyvio. As I mentioned above, at minimum mark it as copyrighted and add a fair use rationale, and then perhaps it is suitable. You might want to read more at Wikipedia:Non-free content. I asked an experienced "image lawyer" to look at it, and he deleted the image as a clear case, stating that it does not meet of free image policy. Wikipedia has stated that copyright is important for us, and something we will respect.

Image deleted. -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you read the documentation of {{Rp}}, you will see that this is indented for works that are cited a lot (starting in the 10s and upwards into the 100s). This is not the case in this article, as {{Rp}} is mainly meant to be used as Harvard style. Some quotes from the documentation: "This template should not be used unless necessary." and "This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read,"

 Done Thanks for the clarification - it has been replaced by a Harvard reference. -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

*There are a bit too many instances of bullet points; these should never be used for longer section of prose. Definitively remove them from 'rolling stock' and 'ticketing', and I would have preferred them removed from 'planned extensions' and 'network'.

 Done -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• In GA/FA articles, it is not normal to include a "in popular culture" section. If there have been written two books about the metro, either use them as references, or include them in a "further reading" section. Similarly, it is not common that quality articles with a large scope (i.e. megastructures, to use a buzzword) like this contian mention of all documentaries or films which have been made or mention them. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has been overloaded with unencyclopedic information like this in the past, but this is not normally permitted in quality articles.
• Some of the references are missing accessdate, a few news items (for instance ref 3) lacks date, and . The IMDb ref cannot be used, because the only mention of the metro is based on a reader review. This fails WP:RS. Ref 68 is a bare link.

 Done -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Do not use all-caps in references, even if the source used them. All-caps is typography, not spelling or grammar.

 Done -- WorLD8115(TalK) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• The external links should be formatted as "official site" or "official website".

 Done -- WorLD8115(TalK) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I do not understand why there are "general references" in this article. All citiations need to be in-line, and as far as I can see, there are no indirect references to those. They are probably better used as external links.

 Done -- WorLD8115(TalK) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• The conversions to US$ have too many sigificant digits.

 Done -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Still on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am failing the article. It has been five weeks since the initial review, and ten days since the last amendment of comments from me. The general rule is that is an article cannot be fixed up to meet the criteria within a week, it should be failed. Given the exhaustive time that has passed, and the lack of compliance with standards for popular culture-related issues, I am forced to fail the article. On the good side, the article has been significantly improved through the process, so it has by far not been wasted. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and comments, which were quite useful. Unfortunately, some of the issues could not be addressed in time. I will renominate the article after making all the necessary changes and further improvements – would you be amenable to taking up the review then? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it is better to take the time to fix an article until it is all ready and then re-nominate. I will consider re-reviewing a renomination it when the time comes (it depends on my available time and mood). Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Delhi Metro/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox: it should be 'National Capital Region, India' not 'National Capital Region (India)' (pipe the link)
• Leave out the 'http://' in the web site, use the format [http://www.delhimetrorail.com www.delhimetrorail.com]; it looks a lot more aesthetic.
• Concerning 'between 6:00–23:00', try to avoid combining wording and use of symbols. I.e. as a standalone, 6:00–23:00 is fine, but in prose, use 'between 6:00 and 23:00'.
• '25-kilo volt' should be '25-kilovolt'.
• 'AC' and 'Hz' should probably be spelled out at first mention.
• The sentence "and has carried over 1.25 billion commuters since its inception, more than the country's total population." is rather fuzzy. First, lifetime ridership is actually fairly trivial, and requires frequent updates (the figure is for instance out of date about once a month (by which another 0.01 billions commuters will have taken it). Also, the last fragment sounds like it is taken out of a Trivial Pursuit question, rather than an encyclopedia.
• Any particular reason 'E. Sreedharan' is referred to without his first name, but only an abbreviation?
• 'Calcutta Metro' should be wikilinked the first time. Also, it is first called Calcutta and then Kolkatta. Please be consequent.
• Who described it as "nothing short of a miracle"? This should be mentioned inline, in addition to the reference. It can be as sort as "...by BusinessWeek".
• The article uses both the dating formats DD Month YYYY and Month DD, YYYY. Stick to one.
• When "standard gauge" is being used as an adjective, it should be hyphenated (e.g. "...the second standard-gauge corridor...")
• There is no prose about the Airport Express Line, despite that it is scheduled to open this month.
• Should be 'between 6:00 and 23:00', not 'between 6:00 to 23:00'. ('to' is used in conjunction with 'from', while 'and' is used with 'between').
• Regarding the things about women-only coaches, I know that this was common practice in Europe during the 19th and early 20th century, so the statement is rather blunt. Rather say that it is the second current or new system to feature this.
• 34 m under "accidents" needs to be converted to imperial units.
• Why on earth is "Rolling stock" capitalized in the middle of a sentence?
• "microprocessor controlled" should be hyphenated.
• First mention of closed-circuit television should have "(CCTV)" behind it.
• Rollin stock is generally not regarded as part of the infrastructure (which is normally reserved for the permanent way).
• The text mentions some 6-car trains, but these are not mentioned in the infobox.
• "Central Secretariat - Qutub" should have an endash (–) instead of a hyphen (-).
• There are very few images towards the top of the article, and it is a bit crowded towards to the bottom. Feel free to add additional images.
• Ref 45 is dead.
• Instead of 'Official site of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC)', just use 'Official site'.

Placing on hold. Looking a lot better than the last time I review it. Most of the stuff above is just details, and the article will pass once they have been seen to. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Replies

Most of the above concerns have been addressed, replies to the rest below:

• E. Sreedharan follows the title of the linked WP article, which in turn is named per WP:NCCN – he is most commonly referred to with the initial.
• The Kolkata Metro was known as the Calcutta Metro until 2001; consequently references to it during the initial construction period of the Delhi Metro (1998-2001) use the old name, to avoid anachronisms. I presume you meant consistent when you stated consequent :-)
• This article primarily deals with the operational portion of the network and in order to maintain compliance with WP:SS and WP:CRYSTAL, under-construction as well as future/proposed lines are mentioned only in brief. In particular, a link to the main Delhi Airport Metro Express article has been provided and a summary of the line's essential details is provided in the table. Detailed information will be added once the line opens.
• Should Rolling stock be moved off to a separate section? For accounting purposes (as I could make out from the annual report), rolling stock is counted together with the rest of the infrastructure (permanent way, stations etc.) while assessing asset value, depreciation etc.
• Ref 45 is quite accessible – were you referring to something else?

Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. Please note that a line under construction does not fall under CRYSTAL. Future events may be written about, however, speculation about their outcome is not. In this case, any line under construction will have a host of verifiable facts (such as length, no. of stations, budgeted costs etc). This are not speculation, but, if referenced, statements of facts. Regarding rolling stock, accounting has nothing to do with operations; there is a difference between 'investment' and 'infrastructure'. All investments will have a depreciation, but that does not mean they should be in the same section on Wikipedia. Ref 45 is fine now, perhaps it was out of order for a day (that sometimes happens). Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done SBC-YPR (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about the manufacturer and how the coaches were transported. Challiyan (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

manufacturer