Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York City Subway/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.
New York City Subway edit
A lot of dedicated members who maintain this article have put a lot of work into making it a Class B article. It would definitely be great if this article would make it as a featured article on the main page, as dedicated Wikipedians like myself who contribute to WP:NYCS work hard to make it "perfect". --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object Lots of uncited information. Quite listy. Also, please avoid trivia sections in articles. Refer this to peer review for further improvements. Gzkn 06:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose despite being a member of WikiProject New York City Subway. Considering the article's length, there are far too few inline references (13) and quite a few external links that are only weakly related to the main topic. Perhaps it is one of my responsibilities as a member of the project to improve the article rather than just criticize it, but I feel that it needs more work than can be done over the course of a FAC nomination. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. I'm also a member of WP:NYCS. I certainly hope this article could achieve FA (or GA) quality, but it does not appear to be anywhere near that point. To add to what Larry V is saying, it also has quite a few redlinks. alphachimp. 07:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The width of the tracks and the cars used for the various lines and the problems this causes is repetitively discussed in 3 different places. Only one discussion of this subject is needed. Hmains 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. I'm not officially part of the WP:NYCS project but I edit related articles. I would not want this article featured on the main page in its current list-filled state. If the info from the "trivia" and "films" sections were converted to prose, this article could become a fascinating piece, packed with drama and intrigue. Gimmetrow 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. The article is nowhere near Featured Article status. And to be honest, this whole nomination is jumping the gun. There are just too many things internal-wise to work out. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object per others. Never Mystic (tc) 16:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object at first site. This article should probably have gone through GA nom before FA, it would have ironed out a lot of this stuff. Still needs minor, but important, work. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.