Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Level Crossing Removal Project/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2024 [1].

Level Crossing Removal Project edit

Nominator(s): HoHo3143 (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to ping me so I don't miss any of the important discussion about the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Level Crossing Removal Program, an infrastructure upgrade program of the government of Victoria, Australia. Since its creation in 2014, the authority has so far removed 74 crossings, with a total of 110 to be completed by 2030. I believe this article should be featured as it has been written to a high standard, illustrated with quality media, and the article has a variety of different pieces of information throughout the article. Most notably, the history, architecture and urban design, and reception sections give a detailed insight into the program from a neutral perspective, shining a light into the positives and negatives associated with the program. Furthermore, I am actively interested in the project and have therefore made extensive edits to the article to bring it up to GA standard and hopefully FA. As I am actively interested in the project, I also make regular updates to the article to reflect its ever-changing nature, notably updating the list of crossing removals as they move through their stages, and writing additional information about the removals when they are announced during an election cycle. I hope that this article can be promoted to FA status and eventually be featured as a TFA on the homepage of Wikipedia. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D edit

While the article is in good shape, it feels a bit under cooked for FA status at present:

The background section is much too short, and doesn't really flesh out why the level crossings were such a big problem. There's lots of material on this - for instance, on the high proportion of time that many barriers were down and the problems this caused for traffic flows.
The 'political' part of the response section doesn't properly discuss whatever Liberal Party's position has been on this program. We only get the views of a backbench MP and what's described as a comment by one of the relevant shadow ministers. Surely the party had official positions on this issue as part of its election platforms, etc?
The material on concerns about the elevated rail sections of this project note that most people surveyed supported the project and the government was re-elected with an increased majority. This doesn't seem very relevant to this issue, as the concerns were being raised by people close to the elevated railways rather than the state population more broadly - there's a risk that this text simply dismisses their views.
"The Guardian Australia has called the program" - This is an op-ed by Margaret Simons, not the views of the Guardian. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D thanks for the feedback. If more people agree with these issues, I can either fix them (if people are willing to give feedback) or just leave it as a GA. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HoHo3143, I would agree with Nick-D that the article needs more polishing before FAC submission, and suggest you withdraw in favour of first pursuing a peer review. Other examples of issues include inconsistency in citation formatting and an imbalance of sources - the article relies heavily on government sites, but there appear to be scholarly sources that have discussed aspects of the project and should be considered for incorporation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- tks for having a go at FAC, HoHo, and to Nick and Nikki for their comments; I concur with the latter's recommendation for PR as a next step. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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