Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chesham branch/archive2

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2020 [1].

Chesham branch[edit]

Nominator(s): Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of iridescent's best work, and it is a shame that this has not been worked on for around a decade. After heavily reworking on some brush ups, I think this is good to go for this nomination. It is about a single-track branch line that is part of the London Underground Metropolitan line, and used to be part of the Metropolitan Railway. The line has a lot of history, and is a unique part of the London Underground being outside London in Buckinghamshire, which makes it sort of a commuter-metro service. Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Much love <3 Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, obviously. ‑ Iridescent 04:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if I should take that as a joke cuz I assume we have a sense of humour :3 Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: please archive this nonsense to avoid it wasting anyone else's time. The nomination is obviously out-of-process—I'm responsible for 95% of the body text and the first I heard of this was when I happened to see it pop up on FAC—and had the nominator actually bothered to follow the instructions someone could have politely explained beforehand that nominating this would be pointless. The nominator has made a huge stack of disruptive edits to it which I've just reverted en masse (I think what's happened is that they've taken every comment on the previous FAC, no matter how goofy, as an instruction to be followed, but the result was WP:CITEVAR breaches, the introduction of outright inaccuracies, and the loss of necessary historical context). In any case, while I do believe this met the WIAFA of a decade ago, it certainly doesn't meet the standards of today; had it passed back then, it would undoubtedly have been FAR'd by now. ‑ Iridescent 12:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.