Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Metro stations/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [1].

List of Washington Metro stations edit

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The first time I've nominated a transportation list, so be gentle. Note that there's been a debate about including the row of images on the right. Reviewer input on that issue would be helpful. Should they be there? Geraldk (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment

  • "The Yellow Line terminates at Mt Vernon Sq/7th St-Convention Center during peak hours (5:00 AM - 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM Monday through Friday)." needs references
Referenced now. Geraldk (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see how flags are useful in this case - per WP:FLAG, flags shouldn't be used for decorative purposes
Eliminated, fyi WP:FLAG goes to a disambig page. Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, didn't know that. I meant Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons).—Chris! ct 06:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think abbreviating District of Columbia in the list is a good idea, some may not know what DC stands for
Fixed Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by the fact that several stations are listed separately because it have two levels. Aren't they still the same stations? Or Washington Metro considered them different stations? You should clarify this by adding a note
Clarified through notes Geraldk (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are too small - should be set as thumb size so that others can set their own preference
Done Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables in Top stations by ridership should be sortable
Done Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to put parenthesis between the "Systemwide" column in "By jurisdiction" table
Done Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Chris! ct 02:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done! Thanks for the suggestions and taking the time to review it. Geraldk (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Hassocks5489. A pleasing and attractively designed list. I am close to being able to support.

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
  • Prose-type things:
    • "...and was partially financed by using funds originally slated for highway construction." Perhaps "...partially financed with funds..." would be better, otherwise it could imply that the whole project was only partially financed, as it were. Also, speaking from a British English perspective, "slated" sounds a bit informal.
    • Comma after "in 1969", otherwise the brain interprets the clause as "Construction began in 1969 and in 1976" and gets confused—well, mine does :)
    • There's a stray "(" before "New York Ave-Florida Ave-Gallaudet U".
    • That sentence might be better as "Since then, only three stations have been opened, all in 2004: the extension...", because it looks a bit unwieldy with lots of commas.
    • In the next paragraph, to reduce commas and remove the unloved ", with" construction, you could try: "There are currently 86 stations on the five lines in the Metro system. A further 11 are proposed as part of the planned Silver Line, which is projected to open in the early 2010s." (I suggest changing one of the instances of "planned" as well, perhaps by replacing with "proposed" as above.)
    • Last para of lead: "DC." should be "D.C." for consistency.
    • Again for consistency, line names (Blue Line etc.) seem to be capitalised in most places, but are in lower case in that paragraph (in the sentence discussing Metro Center station).
    • In the sentence above the "Lines" table, "metrorail" is uncapitalised.
    • Under "Planned stations", the first sentence ("Eleven new stations are currently planned for the system, creating a new line to be called the Silver Line.") is a bit awkward. Perhaps something like: "A new line, to be called the Silver Line, is planned for the system; it will have eleven stations."
    • Under "By jurisdiction", "metro" needs to be capitalised.
  • Table layout and contents:
    • All looks good. Colour is used effectively, and coloured cells/rows have the correct accompanying symbols for compliance with Wikipedia:Accessibility.
    • I'm intrigued by the codes, although it's mainly out of personal interest (the first Wikipedia article I ever wrote was National Location Code, which is basically the more complex British equivalent of this code system, as far as I can tell!). Would you be able to find anything to provide a sourced sentence or two about what the codes signify? (For comparison, NLCs in Britain were originally introduced for accounting purposes.)
    • Sorting appears to work correctly in all cases.
  • Scope:
    • Looks fine. The history which has been added, referred to by SREKAL24, provides useful context. As well as the essential Lines and Stations tables, I (as a reader of the article) appreciate the inclusion of the Planned stations and Ridership sections. These help to satisfy the "comprehensiveness" criterion, in my view.
    • The map also helps in this regard.
    • To me, images are really important in a List of things like buildings, stations etc (my main area of "work"). The two approaches I have used in the past are the strip of images down the side, as on this list, and an "Images" column with a fixed-size (usually 100x100) image (as here). I have a slight preference for the latter, but it needs images for every item in the list otherwise it looks inadequate. The strip-down-the-side method looks good as well, and works well in this instance. I am currently viewing this list on my work computer, which has a relatively narrow screen resolution, and there are no problems at all with the layout of the pics in relation to the tables. I'll have a look later when I get home and go on my wide-screen, higher-resolution computer, and I'm sure it will look fine there as well. (To answer your question at the top!)
  • References:
    • All look suitable.
    • In ref [2] (Schrag's book), "ISBN" is duplicated: when using the "cite book" template, you only need to enter the number in the ISBN field.

Thanks for your work on this list. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • And thanks for the excellent and thorough review. I've made all the corrections you suggest. As to the codes, I was also intrigued by them. I'm a local and rider of the system and had never known there were codes for the stations until I started working on this list (they were there when I started). The only place I've been able to find the codes is on the track shcematic used as a reference, I searched pretty hard to find something on the WMATA website and couldn't. So I assume they're an engineering or maintenance-related identification system used for internal operations only, but have no proof of that. Geraldk (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for working on the above so quickly. I am now at home and can confirm the images and table layouts are fine on the much higher resolution I use here; and I accept your rationale for the codes mystery. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5

Just a few comments here, but on first glance, the list is extremely pleasing aesthetically and does an excellent job of conveying information in an efficient style.

  • "five rail lines were open" - opened
  • Washington, D. C. linked multiple times in lead.
  • What is an "in-fill station"?
  • "A further 11" reads a bit awkwardly, what about 11 more?
  • "2010's" - 2010s
  • Congratulations on the correct plural "termini" - you don't know how many people I have heard try to say "terminuses"!
  • "A sixth line, the Silver Line is currently under construction" - "the Silver Line" is parenthetical, so it needs a comma before and after.
  • Since you use the asterisk to represent something in the key, I wouldn't use it to denote a footnote. You've already made this into a footnote for another location, so there is no reason to state it twice; just insert another "ref label" template to link to the note.
  • Is there a reason that the "Planned stations" section has a key for one line? The other lines don't have keys like this. I think that the termini should be included in the table, and the Silver Line should just be linked in the lead sentence.
  • One of the navboxes doesn't link directly to this article, so remove it or add a link.

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the commentsuses. I've addressed all of them, and appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't know if I had the best possible solution to the question about in-fill stations. Should I keep the original language and make it a note instead? Or perhaps just link it to Glossary of rail terminology#I? Geraldk (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think linking is sufficient in this case.—Chris! ct 04:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with linking to Glossary of rail terminology#I as described. The definition there is clearly written (speaking as a lover of rail jargon – LOL). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switched it to the link. Certainly makes the prose better. Geraldk (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few minor things that I noticed on a check-over:
  • "it will have eleven stations" - 11 per WP:MOSNUM
  • "five rail lines were opened," - this comma should be a colon, as it is followed by a list
After the resolution of these two minor issues, I will wholeheartedly support this nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching both. They're fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've got a lot of dash problems in the table. Whenever the separated elements have internal spaces (e.g. Addison Road–Seat Pleasant), then there should be spaces around the dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority doesn't use spaces around the dashes in the station names? Geraldk (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think correcting the dashes and avoiding ambiguity is more important than staying true to the names. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Geraldk (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm a column with the residential area to which station pertains should be listed also. Say somebody travels to Washington, and knows that he is in the town/residential area X, he should be able to easily find in this list if that X has a metro station. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. The stations are nearly all named after neighborhoods, towns, or geographical features of one kind or another. I could link it to more local jurisdictions (i.e. Montgomery and Prince George's County, Maryland instead of just Maryland) but those are fairly large jurisdictions and would have a number of stations in each. If we did it by city (according to the postal service), we'd still have the problem of every DC station being in Washington, DC, since it is one, large, 800,000 person postal city. Geraldk (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, listing "neighborhoods served" could be original research, unless specified by a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "further stations were opened both in the city and the suburban communities of Arlington County, the City of Alexandria" "both" is redundant. "further" could be changed to "more" for clarity, but I won't push it.
  • "and Fairfax County in Virginia and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland." Too many "and"s, maybe change the first to "as well as"?
  • "Since then, only three stations have been "
  • "New York Ave - Florida Ave - Gallaudet U, all in 2004." Should be spaced en dashes.
  • "currently" (I see multiple occurences) is a dated word, and is often redundant when used in conjunction with the present tense. For example, "There are currently 86 stations on the five lines in the Metro system." If the number is subject to change often, use "As of..."
  • "11 more are proposed as part of the planned Silver Line, which is projected to open in the early 2010s." "11"-->Eleven (per MOSNUM, we can't start sentences with numerals). Also, "which is" can be deleted.
  • "A further ten stations are termini, stations at the end of lines."
  • "are located in Washington, D.C"
  • Can you center columns with figures in them? It looks much neater.
  • Instead of having the color extend over the entire row, can you get it to extend through only the first three cells? See List of Washington Wizards head coaches#Coaches if you don't know how to code it. Dabomb87 ([[User :Thanks for all the comments. Have addressed all but the bg colors, which I'm currently working on. A couple notes so far though, first, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, the station name you reference in the lead already uses en dashes. I checked the mos to be sure and copy/pasted from there. Second, with the centering, I centered the columns with statistics but not the station codes or ranks because I don't think they look good. Let me know if that's adequate. Should have the background colors done in the next couple of hours. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with adding in the colors. In order to avoid color clash with the lines column, I restricted the bg color to just the station name. Let me know if that works for you. Thanks for the idea. Geraldk (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comment - It would be nice if you could talk more about the history of the lines and stations, like in List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a paragraph on history to the lead. Great suggestion, thanks for the review. Geraldk (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]][c]

See note A. It's a terminus during rush hour. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Lines column should be unsortable, as sorting the column is kind of unnecessary redundant.
I'm not sure what you mean. The lines column can be sorted to look at stations by line so, for example, I can locate all of the red line stations more easily. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Yellow and Orange Lines when sortable. They're all over the place! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're divided by that sorting into stations which are solely on one of those lines and stations which sit on two lines (blue/orange v. orange, green/yellow v. blue/yellow v. yellow). While I wish there was a better way to sort them, I still think there's significant utility in being able to sort by line. I just don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Geraldk (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of the state, why not name the county?
It's doable, but if it's done I'd argue for including both the county and the state, since the names of counties will have little meaning to people from outside the US (or even outside metro DC). For that same reason, I frankly don't think it will add much if any utility to the list, but let me know if it will stand in the way of the list's promotion and I'll work something out. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to know why you didn't. And yes, if include, definitely put the state with it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd prefer not to because there's limited utility to it. But let me know if it's something you would insist upon. Geraldk (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:32, 8 June 2009 (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_Washington_Metro_stations/archive1&oldid=1207834545"