Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Valley Metro Rail stations/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Valley Metro Rail stations

List of Valley Metro Rail stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I came upon this list when it look liked this. Lots of issues including incorrect names of the stations, no references, and just a poorly organized list. Since the system is from my home town, I thought I would take a crack at it! Now this is my first FLC nomination in many, many years, so I apologize if I have missed anything. But I believe that it is a helpful list, meets all of the criteria, and has many helpful images. Please feel free to provide any feedback, I will address any comments promptly. Thanks for taking the time to review the article!

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Thanks for delinking things in the lead! It feels a little cleaner now.
  • In re the public art: as I understand it, even publicly displayed, publicly funded art in the US is subject to copyright and not subject to the
    non-free use rationale
    .
  • In re the ref date thing, I was just wondering why you'd gone with "Sunnucks, Mike (August 27, 2015), "Prop. 104 supporters lay out what's next for Phoenix following measure's passage", Phoenix Business Journal (Phoenix, Az), archived from the original on 2016-06-03, retrieved 2016-06-04" instead of "Sunnucks, Mike (August 27, 2015), "Prop. 104 supporters lay out what's next for Phoenix following measure's passage", Phoenix Business Journal (Phoenix, Az), archived from the original on June 3, 2016, retrieved June 4, 2016", the latter of which would leave all dates in the article in a standard format.
  • Thanks @
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comments Good list but needs some work before promotion
  • Like another editor said, still too much
    overlinking
    . Common nouns in the lead should be linked with caution and there's no need to link all the cities and platform types for each station.
  • No need for a separate column just for references, just add them at the end of the station name in the first column
  • The gallery section is a bit odd and doesn't seem to comply with
    WP:GALLERY
    . For example, readers don't need a picture of what a station trash can looks like.
  • The images column in the list doesnt work well, mainly because all the thumbnails look very similar and do not illustrate the article well. I would suggest removing the column and adding select images to the right side of the page with a descriptive caption.
  • Infobox seems unnecessary; I've never seen a list article with one and I think that it should be restricted to the article about the line/system itself.
  • The SVG renders fine on my computer and is legible when I open the image itself. Considering it is representing a 26 mile long line, with lots of stations near each other, I think it would be difficult to read in thumbnail version either way. However, I think its encyclopedic value outweighs any possible readability issues when presented as a thumbnail (since the reader can click on the image to see it better). Any thoughts?
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No need to bold the "35 stations" text.
  • Fix formatting of ".5 miles" to "0.5 miles" and change "electric people mover" to simply "people mover".
  • Final lead sentence does not satisfy
    MOS:DATED
    and needs a citation.
–Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks @
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll have to go with neutral at this time. I only meant to provide a few comments and critiques for now, but I could come back and do a full-on review when I'm less busy. SounderBruce 17:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that the correct formatting of the article names in the list is important to

WP:USSTATION
. If it was articles linked in the text, that would be different, but the purpose of list pages are to include articles related to that topic, so they should be formatted properly. Additional comments:

I haven't had a chance to read through the whole lead section yet, but I'll try to get a chance to do so once the above is addressed. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there is anything else you find.
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not planning on moving them again. Most transit authorities don't spell out street abbreviations for station names, but as an encyclopedia it's better to spell out the full name of streets. Most station articles on Wikipedia follow this practice. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Articles that cover two adjacent one-way stations (i.e. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations) should listed as two separate stations, with some sort of note indicating their one-way service. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added the note to clarify the split platform stations.
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
They are two separate stations a block apart, so it should be pluralized. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Valley Metro may consider the sets of "split stations" as one, but for purposes of Wikipedia, they should be separated. It doesn't make sense to list "Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue" as a single station then their infrastructure is completely separate and they are listed a block apart. Similarly, the
New York MTA considers there to be 422 New York City Subway stations because they consider large transfer complex stations to be a single station, while Wikipedia considers there to be 469 stations total. (This is also explained in the lead of the article page.) –Dream out loud (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess I am not understanding what specific change you are requesting. Is the note that I added sufficient to explain this? I would be uncomfortable
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, you noted earlier that Valley Metro doesn't post station ridership info on the website, but I found this on the very link that you posted. [2] Ridership should be included in the list since it is available. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I didn't look hard enough! Before I make this change, what do you recommend I add? I see two issues, first that Valley metro doesn't provide a total weekday average (they provide ins and outs). Should I average these numbers to get one figure (possibly
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
For the stations that don't have data, a simple {{
N/A}} would be fine, preferrably with an explanation with why the data is unavailable. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Use the "in" values for ridership data. Also, there are few redirects that still need to be fixed, and the one-way stations should be split into separate rows (despite linked to the same article). –Dream out loud (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I will work on it the next few days.
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comments
  • I am on the fence with this one. Per
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Fixed per your recommendation. I still did not link
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • " To sort the table alphabetically, click on the arrows to the right of the column title." This can be deleted, I believe these sentences and things like "this is a list of..." have been deprecated in featured lists.
  • Oh I agree with the reviewer up top, it's important to have the note "The stations are in order from the western terminus to the eastern terminus. ". I would have made that suggestion too. The problem is the next sentence is redundant and instructions like that are no longer used in featured lists.
  • In the captions, for "city hall" do you mean "Mesa City Hall"?
  • "Access is primarily provided at the end of the stations"... there is only 1 exit or do you mean "ends"
  • You say that 11 have park and ride, but the list only has 10.
Nice list, I think that is all my comments. Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Looks good, just 2 more points and the rest is good for me. Mattximus (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
All questions have been answered, good work! support Mattximus (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still a number of issues before I can give support:

  • Tables do not meet guidelines at
    WP:DTT
  • Station titles in Geotag links are not consistent (all should be same as respective article title)
  • Pairs of one way stations should be split into separate rows (I've already mentioned this several times)
  • Just going to jump in here and disagree on this one point. I'm afraid we have to stick to the official "station" definition [3] and not split up one way stations into two stations. Mattximus (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead is too long and should be broken into sections

–Dream out loud (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry to hear that you were burned out by this nomination, but honestly, this list did not seem that it was up to FL standards from the beginning of the nomination, and I wanted to try my best to help you get it there. I've gone through two similar FL nominations myself and I can say that it is a long and grueling process, the most recent of which took almost 3 months. "My standards" are only up to par with my previously-created lists, based on feedback I got from other editors during FL nominations. I wasn't trying to constantly find new issues, but I was coming across more things as I was inspecting the page. If I have time I will try and do more work on this list myself, but I'm not sure how much I'll be able to get done in the meantime since you've requested it be closed. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Valley_Metro_Rail_stations/archive1&oldid=1089078272"