Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 22:08, 8 November 2008 [1].

List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations

edit

I am nominating this list because I believe it fulfills the featured list status.—Chris! ct 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SrX
Weak Oppose/Review by SRX (talk · contribs)
  • In mid-2003, extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae was completed, bringing BART further south into the San Mateo County. - how about In mid-2003, extensions to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae were completed, which brung BART further south into the San Mateo County. Per tenses.
Fixed, though I use brought instead of brung.—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In additions, BART connects its Coliseum/Oakland Airport station to the Oakland International Airport with AirBART, a shuttle bus service. - addition not additions in this context.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of stations are located in the Alameda County with 19. - how about The majority of stations, 19, are located in the Alameda County.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 stations are in the Contra Costa County while eight are in the City and County of San Francisco. - comma after Contra Costa County.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six stations are in the San Mateo County, though it is not part of the BART district. - elaboration about what "not part of the Bart district" means?
The term "Bart district" is explained in the first paragraph—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes don't work properly, when I click the [b] for the daily ridership, it doesn't redirect me to the footnote. Same thing for the [a].
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All ridership statistics are daily average exits on weekday from April 2008 to June 2008. - weekday should be plural.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you link weekday in note C versus doing it in note b?
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--SRX 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The system currently has a total of 43 stations: 15 surface, 13 elevated and 15 subway. - now as a reader who knows nothing about subways, what does elevated mean? Also a comma should be after elevated. Also, wouldn't it be "15 on surface" and "subways" not "subway"?
Partially fixed. Though I don't think I can explain "elevated" more clearly. Any suggestions?—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all, what does elevated mean? Plus, a comma is needed after elevated.--SRX 02:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means elevated metro station—Chris! ct 03:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link for elevated station. Hopefully that makes the term clearer to readers.—Chris! ct 06:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that helps, but why pipelink to the glossary when you can pipe to elevated railway?--SRX 15:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elevated railway redirect to rapid transit. I guess it could work if that page explains what "elevated" is.—Chris! ct 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed—Chris! ct 19:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Goodraise (talk)

Resolved issues by Goodraise (talk · contribs)

  • The references lack publisher info.
I just checked. Every ref has publisher info.—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions are unnecessarily wordy. "View of" and "The" are often not needed.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • View of station platform of the MacArthur station. Is not a complete sentence.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and thoughts:
  • You might want to apply the background colors in the table to whole lines instead of only the first field.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know the difference between "Official transfer stations" and "Terminals". Should I have to click the links to find out, or could you explain it right there?
The terms are clear to me so I am not sure how to make them more clear. Any suggestion?—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image in the lead seems a bit too large.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about reshaping the "Citations" and "Bibliography" sections into looking like the "References" section of List of Bleach episodes (season 5)? You might also fit in the "Notes" to make it a "References and Notes" section.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the names of the Official transfer stations bolded in addition to the background color? This might be too much formating.
Fixed—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Goodraise (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues brought up after support was declared:
  • The lead sections Image needs a more descriptive caption, as the current one is useless without the actual image.
  • The Wikimedia Commons template might waste less space if it were placed higher in the section.
Both addressed —Chris! ct 05:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: MOS appears to be adhered to. Footnotes look good. Overall appearance is pleasing. Lead section goes into sufficient detail. Supporting materials are rich yet not overwhelming. Image captions are suitable (with exception mentioned above). In my judgement, the nomination meets FL criteria one through six every FL criteria. Therefore I'm now supporting this nomination. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Boissière

Another rail list - good work. Just a few Comments

  • "...in California consisted of three counties..." - Do you mean "consisting"?
Fixed —Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fifth largest rapid transit systems" - should be singular.
Fixed —Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that the "Lines" column should be sortable as each cell can contain multiple entries. This seems to be the rule in other FLs.
Fixed —Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the "Authority" bit in the City/Authority column. Presumably it is because of the airport station but I don't understand why it is different (i.e. why isn't the city containing the airport not put here?).
The reason I didn't use the city is that the airport is within another county, not in San Francisco. But since it is generally considered San Francisco, I've change it to San Francisco.—Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced that future stations (even if they are fairly certain) should be in the main list. One problem is that the West Dublin/Pleasanton station slightly screws up the Year opened and Ridership sorting - it always appears first. Either add it in when it opens or maybe have a small "Stations under construction" list after the main one. If you choose to leave it in in some form then, in the description, please replace the colloquial "slated" with "due".
Fixed —Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boissière (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments seem to have been addressed - Support Boissière (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 4 November 2008 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations&oldid=1148848785"