Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AirTrain JFK/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2018 [1].

AirTrain JFK edit

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free). The article was passed as a Good Article in October. I think I have found all the high-quality and relevant sources about this topic that I can find, so I have nominated this page for Featured Article status. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support by AmericanAir88 edit

@Epicgenius:

Bibliography Number 6 is a Dead Link
Reference 126 is a Dead Link

Amazing work as always. As the Good Article Reviewer of this article, I definitely Support this article.

@AmericanAir88: Thanks for the support, I have fixed these links. Also to clarify, you were the reviewer on the GA nomination. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

"airport's operator, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey." It is more relevant here that they own the railway - maybe mention both.
"renovation of the three airports" What three airports - apologies if I have missed your explanation.
"This would provide faster service to JFK via a one-seat ride " Is one-seat ride USEng for not having to change trains?
There is a missing url error message on n 15.
Article looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dudley Miles: Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the delay. I've fixed all the issues you've mentioned above. You are correct, "one-seat ride" is the same as not having to transfer. epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Not going to comment on all images, just these that might have problems. Of which there apparently aren't any, although I wonder if the logo is really simple enough to not fall under copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the comment. From the looks of it, the logo is just an outline of a plane and an outline of a train track with three sleepers (vertical bars). It definitely looks simple enough. epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SounderBruce edit

I will be combing through for specific issues, but generally the prose in the article needs some work to be readable to a non-local layman.

First off, the Incidents and shutdowns section doesn't look necessary at all. The January 2017 shutdown could be merged into the history, but the rest is routine for a train system of any size.
The Street View box in the external links section is unnecessary and the links will likely break after the next imagery update.
The first sentence needs to use a spelled-out three, a less specific length (eight miles is fine), and should move the airport further in front. It also omits all mention of state and country, which is standard.
Again, the mixing of spelled-out and numeral figures is jarring. "10" should be "ten", at all times.
"as a 24/7 service", or better yet "runs 24 hours on all days"
"under contract to" should be "under a contract with"
Who proposed the Program for Action? The lead, as brief as it should be, also needs bits of context.
Elaborate on why the 21 proposals generally failed
"Serious planning" sounds out of place
Opening date is in a sentence fragment

More to come if I feel like it, but at the moment I don't think this is up to FA quality given that this is just the lead and some extras. Sounder Bruce 08:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thanks for the comments; I have fixed these issues. I don't think the article is that poor of a quality. For instance, Street View links don't break after every update, but rather, redirect to the most up-to-date imagery. The links don't break in the Street View box. Most of the other issues are minor, so I have fixed these. As for the 21 proposals, that isn't important enough for the lead so I have removed it. epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Opening sentence: "AirTrain JFK is a three-line, 8.1-mile-long (13 km) people mover system and elevated railway serving the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, New York, United States."—First, why do we need a seven-word monster to describe a city that is known to just about everyone on the planet? AND why are all three items linked, against the style guide's recommendations? Second, perhaps it's less cumbersome to reverse the order at the opening and dump the double hyphens: "AirTrain JFK is a three-line people-mover system and elevated railway 8.1 miles (13 km) long that serves the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City." Is it two things—a people-mover system and an elevated railway? Very odd.
- @Tony1: To your first point, this addressed SounderBruce's comments above about the state and country not being mentioned. I am not sure whether to include the state and country now, or not. Second, this is an elevated people-mover system. I moved the mention of the three lines to the third sentence. epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second and third sentences: "The system runs as a 24/7 service all year round and stops at ten stations, connecting six terminals at the airport with the New York City Subway and the Long Island Rail Road at Howard Beach and Jamaica. Bombardier Transportation operates AirTrain JFK under contract with the airport's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."—First, do you need "all year round"? Doesn't 24/7 mean that by default? Second, I find the first and second propositions too different to jam together into one sentence. Third, does the system or do the trains stop at stations? If there are only six terminals at the airport, perhaps this: "The system has ten stations, connecting the six airport terminals with the New York City Subway, and the Long Island Rail Road at Howard Beach and Jamaica. Bombardier Transportation operates 24/7 AirTrain JFK under contract with the airport's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
- I have separated the 24/7 part from the system description part. Additionally, there are six terminals, each served by one station (though there were originally 9 terminals with the same number of stations). I spent some time thinking about this, but it's a very complicated setup.
- I find the phrasing "Bombardier Transportation operates 24/7 AirTrain JFK under contract with the airport's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey" somewhat awkward. How about this wording: "The system, which operates 24/7 service, consists of three lines and ten stations." epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the rest of the article better than this? Tony (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The lead paragraphs were originally written hastily, but I have tried to rectify this in recent edits. I took more care in writing the rest of the article. Perhaps a better metric would be to randomly select a few paragraphs in the body section and critique them. Then, I would be happy to fix any general issues that come up. epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked further, and agree that the standard of writing is acceptable after the lead. Tony (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for over 2 months. It attracted a support from the GA reviewer (who unfortunately does not indicate how this article meets the FA (rather than GA) criteria) and one other reviewer. SounderBruce had some issues with the article, as did Tony1 (albeit nothing major after the lead). I think this far into the nomination, we need more support than this, and we still seem a little way from a consensus to promote. Therefore I will archive this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, and it is fine to ping those who reviewed this FAC when the second nomination opens. Sarastro (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (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. Sarastro (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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