Talk:Transport in Tasmania

Optional improvements (not needed for GA status)

• Section Roads- having where the main roads originate and terminate. (eg X Highway from A to B)
• Maps
  • For airports
  • For docks

Drive-by comment

Unfortunately, I think the article needs a lot more expansion to meet the second criterion (Broad in its coverage). The article is very short but there is so much to say about transport in Tasmania. Not to mention that the article only covers the present day really (except for a small part at the end), when I would expect lots of history to be covered. If it were up to me, I would fail this review. Steelkamp (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair point on not having a history section. May also need to incorporate future plans section. Transport in Penang is an example that we can look at for a similar GA with a similar scope. Note the only other transport in... article that has GA status is Transport in the Soviet Union. Jacksonvil (alt) (talk) (contribs) (Main account) 02:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I also regrettably agree with Steelkamp. Another issue which I think needs to be addressed by the nominator is the reliability of sources and compliance with MOS. Also the excessive use of commercial websites rather than reliable secondary sources, as well as some US/AU spelling inconsistencies and other inconsistencies with MOS. I don't think those criteria (1b and 2b) are currently met, but I'm willing to revise the article/review once Jacksonvill has completed it. If you have any questions, please let me know. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Steelkamp @Jacksonvil @Alexeyevitch: I am in the process of fixing up this page to fit the criteria better. @JTdale is also helping the expansion of the page. It might be done within a week or so. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 21:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I will be holding this for now while improvements are being made. Jacksonvil (alt) (talk) (contribs) (Main account) 23:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I need a list

@Alexeyevitch: @Jacksonvil: @Jacksonvil (alt): Guys, can I have a simple list of things I need to change and problems that need fixing, make it specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrActiniuM (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Others can also add onto this list, this is a limited list and there may be more things that I missed.

• History section. Currently it's a good start but I think it needs a bit more expansion. Also it might need to be placed first?
  • Incorporating history into each of the sections (eg the first road in ... was built in 1900)
• Future developments (if any)
• Any records? (eg longest bridge, longest tunnel)
• Like I said above, maps. (but they are not strictly needed)

I might add more if anything comes to mind. Jacksonvil (alt) (talk) (contribs) (Main account) 02:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Additionally things that came to mind.

• Tourist targeted transport

Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 10:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks, man MrActiniuM ☢️talk 10:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

May I also recommend to the nominator: adding a source to the end of the first paragraph in § Ferries, and replacing the references which point to websites, rather than news sources, e.g. Bicycle Network and Tassielink. Ty. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksonvil I kinda don't think records are that necessary; I might be able to do it after the review. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 11:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Just do major, notable things that are important to the overall network. It’s fine if you don’t get every single detail. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 11:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure man, thanks. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 11:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Extending the hold

@Jacksonvil: @Jacksonvil (alt): @Alexeyevitch: Can you guys extend the hold until Friday, as I have been bogged down in school assignments and procrastination. Thanks. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 10:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. That won't be a problem. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Restarting the review

@Jacksonvil, Jacksonvil (alt), and Alexeyevitch: I'm happy for you guys to restart the review as I have finished implementing some of your suggested changes. I'll do the rest after the review. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 22:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I will be happy to review this soon. Just had a quick look and it looks way better now, good job on the expansion! Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 08:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Review 2

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Fixed up a few things, it looks good. I may be bad on some minor things though.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spot checks will be performed below.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing of particular note is on earwig.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I've checked all of the images and they are all CC.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The captions look good.
	7. Overall assessment.

Close

More discussion

I’ve just spotted that in the future development/Bus rapid transit section, it says that the government is building a BRT network, but where? An average person (including me) would not know where Claremont or Glebe hill is. I’m not sure if this is supposed to be an intercity BRT or intercity BRT, but if it’s intercity then I guess it’s fine but if it’s intercity then you might want to specify what city. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 03:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok let me specify MrActiniuM ☢️talk 07:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment on structure and lead

It may be an idea to have history of rail/road/maritime in each section, rather than a singular history section.

And perhaps a section for pubic transport.

The lead needs some work - is it going to use sources or rely on the body? "complex network" - is this sourced or just fill? "and is served by planes and other air transport" - does it mean helicopters? I did not see them mentioned in the article.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Public Transport was already removed by me for generalisation, see the first review. and the "complex network is not cited per MOS:LEADCITE. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 21:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Commander Keane, @MrActiniuM, @Jacksonvil: What's the status of this review? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Ongoing, but I believe @Jacksonvil is unavailable. I've notified him on his talk page already. Thanks, MrActiniuM ☢️talk 21:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that he has not edited in 2 weeks I am inclined to reset the clock and return this to the queue; that way interested reviewers will see it. They will not necessarily see this review though. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)