Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Denver RTD light rail stations/archive1

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 promoted by The Rambling Man 17:04, 8 November 2010 [1].

---

List of Denver RTD light rail stations

List of Denver RTD light rail stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Denver RTD light rail stations/archive1

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FLC criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FLC on similar topics (List of Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail stations, List of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail stations, List of UTA TRAX stations) Patriarca12 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 01:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Presently" - timeframe needed. The title of the list is "RTD light rail" but you continually refer to "RTD Light Rail". Is this inconsistent? "RTD has adopted " is this usually referred to as "The RTD"? Would be useful (I think) to see fare zones discussed in the lead since you list them in the table. Reference->References. Maybe it's a personal thing, but since the under construction stations are all (a) on West Corridor (b) due for completion in 2013 and (c) referenced by [16], I'd remove all three of those columns and write some prose to introduce the remaining part of the table along with that repeated information. Ref 11 could really use a page for that article. Same for ref 15. You have a template called "TheRide Light Rail" but this isn't referred to in any way in the lead. Any reason? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC) All of the above comments have been addressed. Capitalization issues have been corrected, additional prose added, and both the references and template amended. Thanks for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC) You're welcome. I'll re-review tomorrow and cap. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks as good as my rail lists, LOL. Though all the PDF refs need to have format=PDF—Chris!_c/t 01:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! format=PDF added. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support can't find any issues with the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is not well written. I fixed some problems but many more still remain. Some examples: As of 2010, there are thirty-six stations on the five lines in the RTD Light Rail system This sentence partially duplicates the second sentence of the same paragraph. I suggest a merge. All of the stations along the RTD light rail network are open-air structures featuring ... It is not necessary to repeat "RTD light rail network" in every sentence. In addition, should not "light rail" be capitalized like in the first paragraph? The RTD has adopted specific design standards that are incorporated into its station design, with a specific emphasis ... Can repetition of "specific" be avoided? Its fare structure incorporates a fare zone system used for calculating the price of tickets for travel What does "its" refer to? Transition plaza from the previous sentence? So we have "fare system of the transition plaza"? Additionally, all stations include works of public art ... Additionally to what? To the fare system? (The previous sentence is about the fare system.) Can a scheme be included into the article? Otherwise it is very difficult to read the third paragraph. From reading the third paragraph is not clear when all five lines were constructed. The word "included" is used to often, in my opinion. The article needs a general copy-edit by someone not familiar with the text. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Worked to address most of your comments that I can. A copy-edit from a 3rd party still needs to be made, and is "scheme" a map? Thanks for the comments. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I copy-edited the first paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've retracted my own comment. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added column scope to two tables, and row headers+scope only to the main table. I don't think the "under construction" table would find much benefit from row headers as it has only two columns. I've also added summaries to each table for use by screen readers. I believe this candidate is compliant with WP:ACCESS as far as the tables are concerned. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

*What is "side center style"? Can it be wikilinked or explained in a footnote? Note added to clairfy. To me it is unclear what the " specific design standards" are. Can you explain? In fact the sentence starting: "The RTD has adopted specific design standards..." reads a bit like advertising (unencyclopedic) to me. What does "...at the facility." in the same sentence refer to? Reworded and cleaned-up a bit. How about rewording the sentence: "Each is subject..." to something like: "The RTD has established (certain) criteria for station design with the intention/aim of incorporating each station effectively into its surrounding community."? That sounds much better. Done. What is "multi-modal access"? Wikilinked I think I understand what it means. Just a question about words: neither Intermodal passenger transport nor Mixed-mode commuting has the exact phrase "multi-modal access". Should it be added as alternative name to these articles or changed in this list? Good call. I removed the phrase altogether and linked Intermodal passenger transport by itself. What additional information does the phrase: "for travel from station to station on the network" convey? Could it be removed? Gone Maybe spell out "Golden->Golden, Colorado" as the sentence reads a bit confusing to somebody who does not know that there is a place called "Golden". Done Why is the number of parking spaces relevant to this list? I left them there as they were part of the original list on the RTD Bus & Light Rail page. I have no feelings on leaving them or removing them and am agreeable to whatever consensus is made. In my opinion they could stay if they are part of the stations themselves (operated by RTD). They should be removed if they are just parking spaces in proximity of the rail station (not operated by RTD). All of the spaces associated with the station in this list are owned and operated by the RTD and not private entities. Fine. Could you add a sentence or two explaining the fare zone system, i.e. which fare Done Good. Can you add in the same sentence which zone "Downtown Denver" is ("A" zone or "D" zone?) Noted that downtown is in the A zone. Any chance to have a map? Done Initially I though about a real map, but this schematic plan is perfectly fine. On my screen there is a large empty space to the left of the plan. Could this be fixed? (I know that it is virtually impossible to make it look good for all browsers and screen resolutions, so if you tell me it looks good on your/most screens, that would be fine with me.) Looks good on my screen, but I am not as familiar with specific syntax that may help with this on other monitors. Any suggestions on how to do this would be greatly appreciated. OK. Is it meaningful to have the "Lines" column sortable? You're right. Now unsortable. Are there inofficial transfer stations? Not quite sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate more? There are "Official transfer stations" in the color key... On other lists of metro stations (List of Washington Metro stations & List of Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations for example) only differentiate between the "official" transfer stations as identified by the agency and not list every station where multiple lines run and transfers can be made. I see. The LA list did not have the "official" when I checked. I don't think this point is very important so I leave it up to you whether to have "official" or not or whether to explain in the text what an official transfer station is. bamse (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Comments addressed. Thanks for taking the time to check it out and providing feedback! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) One more thing. After more carefully reading the intro, I think that the second and third paragraph need a copy-edit (you could ask the WP:GOCE for help). Examples of prose that needs to be addressed in addition to the sentence I mentioned above are: "...and passenger services can be found between the platform..." I see what you mean but it reads a bit cumbersome. "In addition to the design standards, all stations are decorated ..." Is this really an addition or a rather something completely different? "...expansion took rail to the southeast..." is this proper wikipedia English? bamse (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular has taken the time to take a second look at the prose and perform a copyedit. I hope this does resolve some of these concerns. Thanks again for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have the prose issues been resolved, and have Bamse and Ruslik been asked to revisit the nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues noted by Bamse have been addressed and am waiting for a second response. Issues from Ruslik have been addressed as best I can without a peer review as the rules state "A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time." Patriarca12 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I examined the prose and did a copyedit, looks good to me. Jujutacular ^talk 00:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jujutacular for the copyedit. It is much appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of my issues have indeed been addressed. There are still three outstanding items though (see above). I don't care too much about the 2nd and 3rd issue (a reply would be appreciated though) but the first, i.e., the sentence: "The transition plaza is the area where tickets are purchased and passenger services can be found between the platform and where intermodal access is available." still reads confusing to me, partially due to the doubled "and". Maybe it could be split in two sentences? bamse (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments. I went back and tweaked all three of prose concerns mentioned above, and I do believe they read much better. Let me know if anything else needs to be amended. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much better now. bamse (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no current issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support After all comments have been addressed. bamse (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Everything looks to meet criteria. Afro (Talk) 23:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

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