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

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The list was withdrawn by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]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

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]

  • Comment: The lead section is a bit overlinked; you could probably do without the links to brand, train stop, municipality, intersection (road), weather, waste container, drinking fountain, parking space, nonprofit organization, sales tax, and board of directors. Images check out; all are freely licensed on Commons. Actually, I'm not sure whether File:VMR Station Public Art.jpg should be in there–it may not be covered by freedom of panorama which does not cover artworks, even permanent ones, in the US. On ref 15, the archive/accessdates aren't in a format inconsistent with the other accessdates. This page is looking in good shape! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 07:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks @Bobamnertiopsis! I appreciate the review. Here are my responses:
      • I have delinked based on your recommendations.
      • The piece of art on the station is public art (in that it was commissioned and paid for by Valley Metro and the City of Mesa). I believe that all copyright is released in this case. I am basing this off of the publication of photos of each art piece by Valley Metro found here. I updated the file's description accordingly to clarify. Let me know if this satisfies your concern.
      • On Reference 15, the first date is that date of publication, the second date is when the article was archived by WayBack Machine and the third date is when I accessed the article. It looks different because it is the only source that I used an archived version (Phoenix Business Journal's links rot sometimes).
    • Please let me know if you have any follow-up comments. Thanks again! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 27 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 freedom of panorama. Wikimedia Commons's page on freedom of panorama says "17 USC 120 [which governs freedom of panorama in the US] applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures." See Portlandia (statue) or Cloud Gate for some very prominent works of public art that art still not covered by freedom of panorama and whose accompanying pictures are therefore hosted with a 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.
  • Oh, may bad! I didn't understand what you were referencing at first. It has been fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on this article! If I have the time, I may make a similar one for the light rail stations on my local metropolitan area's train lines, using yours as a template. All the best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 05:18, 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.
  • Although I agree with you, I think this is outside the scope of WP:FLC. None of the criteria require proper naming convention for articles that are just linked to the featured list candidate. If I have time I may be able to address this separate from this nomination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for a separate column just for references, just add them at the end of the station name in the first column
  • Since the station name column has various symbols after many of the stations, adding references here would probably create a readability issue. I don't believe there is any guideline or FL criteria that states it cannot be done this way. If you have another recommendation on where to put the references, I would be open to any suggestions. Any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 system map should be included (but not as part of the infobox). However, the SVG map does not render properly as a thumbnail and is very difficult to read, so I would consult WP:SVG help for futher assistance.
  • 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.
  • Utilized the {{as of}}. This statement is almost cited because there are no sources that explain the future configuration. I haven't been able to find anything that specifically states this and I am pretty sure that Valley Metro Rail hasn't publicly discussed how the system will be configured after everything gets built. Would you recommend that I just remove the sentence? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
–Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Dream out loud! I really appreciate your review and in-depth comments. I believe I have addressed or responded to all of your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to address your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I liked the images embedded within the list but that's probably a preference thing. Thanks for your responses to these comments; the list looks in good shape! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This page needs some more work, mainly in the prose department. Some sentences are really awkward and . Some of the things pointed out by earlier reviews haven't been fully fixed, like overlinking (the specific examples were fixed, but the issue persists). I'll give my full two cents later, but here's a few suggestions. SounderBruce 05:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The newly added coordinates look out of place and seem more like filler than useful information.
      • It is actually pretty common item to include in lists about places that have specific coordinates. The {{GeoGroup}} template allows editors to see all of the points on different types of maps (Google) or even download the points for their use. I would consider providing the exact geographic location of each station to be extraordinarily helpful. MOS:COORDS doesn't clarify when to use coordinates, but the mere fact we have a MOS on the topic tells me that it is perfectly acceptable, or even encouraged, to provide this information to our readers. Also coordinates are included in each station article as part of the infobox. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The red links look out of place and need stubs or redirects for the time being. Approved stations are plenty notable.
    • The sentence about Ability360 belongs in the station article, not on a list where summarizing is the goal.
    • "which will begin operations at the end of 2018" sounds awkward. Normally, "begin service" would be used here.
    • Citations needed for the extension names, especially the "starter line".
      • The two extensions names (Central Mesa and Northwest Phase I) are cited in sources 7 and 8, and their formal Valley Metro names are cited in sources 24 and 26. Added a source after the first instance of "starter line". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there ridership statistics for each of the stations? They should be added as a column.
Thanks @SounderBruce for the review. Regarding the other reviews, I believe I have either addressed or responded to every comment, and am waiting on some follow-up items from Dream out loud. Let me know if you have any other items to add, especially any overlinking examples. Appreciate it! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce, just wanted to send you a quick ping to see if there are any other items that I can address to improve this list. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I would like to confirm that I have addressed all of your comments. If there is anything else, please feel free to let me know. If not, would you be able to provide a final opinion on the list (i.e. Support/Oppose/Neutral)? Thanks, « 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 @SounderBruce,, this nomination is getting pretty old and may be closed soon, so I wanted to establish that I have addressed all of the comments so far. Let me know if there are any other items that you notice. « 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:FLC, and they should all be fixed as per 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:

  • Station list should be in alphabetical order by station (current order looks very unorganized)
    • Stations are in order from the western terminus to the eastern terminus (since it is a single line system, this order made the most sense). The sortable table will allow readers to sort alphabetically. I added a note to the column heading to clarify this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinates section seems unnecessary and adds too much clutter to the page. I suppose it's an interesting feature, but I don't know of any other station lists that have it.
    • I do not agree. If I am reading about these stations and I want to see what one looks like, or where it is located, there is a direct link provided for me. It is a great and useful feature, especially being able to open up a map with all of them on it. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it shouldn't. Coordinates are an encouraged feature on Wikipedia and found on almost all location-based articles. I cannot go along with argument that this is not helpful for our readers; it would be a detriment not to include it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map and some photos are missing alt text.
  • According to Checklinks, 5 of the citation links require registration, and should be noted with {{subscription required}} or similar.
    • Added |subscription=yes to citation template (Az Central does allow 10 free articles before a subscription is required, just so everyone knows). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valley Metro Rail is overlinked in the citations
  • Publication place parameters (i.e. "Phoenix, Az"; "Tempe, Az" [sic]) are not necessary for these citations (should only be used when multiple places produce publications with the same name).
  • As I stated earlier, the SVG map does not render well as a thumbnail and the station names are almost impossible to read. It does read fine when clicked on, but it should be somewhat legible when it is included on the page.

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]
@Dream out loud: the creator of the map increased the font size. Let me know if this helps make it clearer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream out loud: Sorry for not adding "station" to the article names, dumb mistake on my part. Thanks for helping out! I am not sure if you know or not, but Valley Metro doesn't spell out the full names of the "roads" within the station name (i.e. University Drive/Rural station is actually University Dr/Rural station). See here for how Valley Metro names their stations. I really don't mind either way, I just didn't want to fix all of the redirects in the article unless the station names are final. Let me know what you think and if you are planning on moving them again. If not, I will fix the redirects. « 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]
@Dream out loud: sounds good. I fixed all the redirects. « 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]

@Dream out loud: Are you suggesting the creation of two separate articles for each split-station? Those stations are considered one station with two platforms, not two separate stations. I don't necessarily agree with the current naming structure you added when you moved these articles that makes the word "station" plural (i.e. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations vs Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue station). I think adding a note stating these stations have two separate platforms for each direction would suffice. I can work on that later today. I also think the station articles should be moved to the singular title station. « 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]
@Dream out loud: Valley Metro's official tally is that the system has 35 stations Source. If those split-platform stations were counted as separate stations than the system would have 40 stations. It is the difference between a split platform station and two stations. Per all of the sources, Valley Metro counts those split platform stations as one station, not two. We have to go with what the sources provide us. Either way, is there anything else you would like addressed? « 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 performing my own research to classify these split platforms as two separate stations when all of the sources in the article classify them as one. Just because something may not make sense, doesn't mean we can go against what the sources are reporting. The New York MTA issue seems to be more about how transfer stations are counted where multiple separate services interline with each other. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations is a good example of how this is one station with two platforms, since the light rail platforms are on each side of a bus transfer facility. « 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 WP:OR), or list both (which I believe will look very cluttered). Also, how do you recommend I treat the 7 stations that don't have ridership info from that source (both of the new extensions)? Thanks, « 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]
@Dream out loud: Which value do you recommend I provide for ridership? An average of ins and outs, just one, or both? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream out loud: I would like to wrap-up your comments as best I can. WOuld you be able to tell me which ridership value you would prefer so I can make the change? Thanks, « 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]
Dream out loud, I haven't forgotten about your comments, just haven't had much time lately. I will try to get to them tonight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dream out loud, I think I addressed everything. I didn't notice any redirects, so if I missed some let me know which ones and I will fix them. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I sympathise with the difficulties finding an elegant sentence structure but I don't think "U.S". is appropriate as most non-americans reading this would not know what you mean. U.S.A is better, and "United States" is the best for international readers, especially with a wikilink. Of course if only Americans read wikipedia the way you have it would be perfect. "Valley Metro Rail is a light rail transit system that serves the Phoenix metropolitan area in Arizona, United States." would be my preferred structure but of course I'm open to other versions.
  • " 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.
  • This was added in per a comment from a reviewer above. They requested clarification since the default sort was not alphabetical (based on station location, running west to east). I would be hesitant to make your change since it was requested before for further clarification. Let me know if that works for you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 @Mattximus! I appreciate it. Let me know if you have any other comments. « 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 @Mattximus! « 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 @Dream out loud, to be frank, I have gotten to the point that I am somewhat burned out by this nomination, specifically you continually bringing up new items after I resolve your previous issues. I don't say this to be rude, just to tell you that I am no longer invested enough to see this nomination through to the end. Please feel free to make any edits to the article to bring it up to your standards, although I will be requesting the FLC Directors to close this nomination asap. Thanks again, « 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"