Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 21 March 2009.

Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project

 * Nominator(s): Musashi1600 (talk)

Article currently has GA status, and the only feedback received in a request for peer review was that it needed copyediting, which has since been done. (Thanks to User:Scartol and User:Anne Teedham for their help.) If it makes to FA, great; if not, then the feedback will only improve it. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Current ref 19 (State of Hawaii...) needs a publisher and last access date
 * Current ref 34 (Section 3-404...) needs a last access date
 * Current ref 41 (alternatives...) needs publisher and last access date
 * Current ref 42 (Draft Enviormental...) needs a publisher and last access date
 * http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081110/NEWS09/811100345/-1/BACKISSUES deadlinks
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The necessary information for those references has been added, and the dead link removed. Musashi1600 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref format comments -- Ref formatting found up to speed using WP:REFTOOLS. TRU  CO   21:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments. Interesting article, overall well-written. A few things need to be tweaked, and then I'll be ready to support. Karanacs (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Need conversions between standard and metric distances (I see a foot measurement in the lead at least)
 * File:Mayorneilsblaisdell.jpg has an invalid license
 * I think there are a few too many sections. I'd combine the two sections on the 2008 election into one, and remove the subheadings in the studies section
 * The section (paragraph) on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement needs to have its first sentence reworded to put hte focus back on the project. Instead, this wording jars a bit, introducing a completely new concept without explaining right away why it is relevant to this article.
 * I think the studies information might need to go above the elections info - some of it is referenced in elections, and it appears to be first in chronological order


 * Fixed per comments. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The controversy over the rail line was the dominant issue for local politics leading into the 2008 elections". Could be neater. These were city elections, yes? "... issue in the 2008 city elections." (or "local elections"). Prefer to know exactly which local government areas—presumably both HCC and Oahu? Vague. Then I see that it was a state issue, the tax increase. Doesn't sound local to me.
 * "also includes"; remove " also". Remove "then".
 * "Rolling stock for use on the line will be similar to that of light rail systems in the United States"—Has Hawaii left the federation? "other"?
 * "and will carry about"
 * "300", but "forty". Where's your boundary for spelling out? See MOSNUM?
 * "State Senator Kim cited a letter from U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye (where he stated his concerns about jeopardizing federal funding) as the reason for the move". Avoid parentheses if easy to: "As the reason for the move, State Senator Kim cited a letter from U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye that outilned the Senator's his concerns about jeopardizing federal funding."
 * "The City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services released a formal report on November 1, 2006, titled the Alternatives Analysis Report, which compared the cost and benefits of a rail system (or "fixed guideway system" as it was called) with three alternatives." Long snake. Try this: "The City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services released a formal report on November 1, 2006, the Alternatives Analysis Report; this compared the cost and benefits of a rail system ("fixed guideway system") with three alternatives." You could almost drop the eccentric bureaucratese in parentheses altogether. Who needs to know, and it's easy to work out if you consult the doc.
 * Flips to present tense? Will look odd in a few years' time: "studies various natural and social impacts from ...". Shoot down "various"; is "of" better than "from"?

These are just idle observations from the top part. Don't they suggest that a copy-editor is required? Perhaps 45 minutes by a good one. I am convinced you could attract a word-nerd from RL who cares about this topic. Good for WP? Tony  (talk)  11:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For all practical purposes, the City and County of Honolulu is the same as Oahu; the county covers the entire island, although it also includes the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.
 * The rail project is under the city's jurisdiction, but is primarily funded via a state-imposed tax. Isn't the section on the general excise tax already clear about that?
 * Article otherwise revised per comments.
 * The article was previously copyedited by Scartol, who's supposed to be one of the better ones out there. Musashi1600 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rejoinder: Not to speak ill of any previous copy-editor, my comments suggest that someone with distance from the text needs to go through it. I have looked only at the top part. Concerning the city and the county: it's unclear in the lead, and leaving the reader hanging on this point until further down is unnecessary—indeed undesirable. Isn't it easy to clarify on the spot? (Or just as good, to avoid the issue until there's space below to explaining it in a little detail?) On the tax: OK. Do you know where to find a copy-editor? Tony  (talk)  09:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just got a note from the nominator about a possible copy edit. I will gladly make a run-through... I will have a good amount of time to sit down with the article later today... -Pax85 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, mostly just a single question that this article doesn't address: why was the section "West Loch – Pearl Highlands" (& the two next sections on the west side of Pearl Harbor) selected to be the first section brought online? While I know nothing about Honolulu or its traffic/population patterns, after glancing at a map of the city I would expect the first section brought online would be in the core of the city, which appears to be east of Pearl Harbor. An FA on this rapid transit project would have an answer to this question. -- llywrch (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Llywrch comments


 * The city chose to build that phase first since that part of the line includes the baseyard for rolling stock, and they made a planning decision to start where it'd be easy to construct the line. That info is now in the article.  Musashi1600 (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments As a road geek, the first thing that caught my eye, is that the infobox showing the proposed train stops lists several highways. Why does the infobox use the route shields for highways, but not link to the highway articles? Most of of these have articles, Kamehameha Highway etc. For the ones that don't, per WP:USRD standards, the title will be Hawaii Route 93, etc. For the record, the proper name is Interstate H-1, H1-Freeway is colloquialism. Dave (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion, consider merging the background and history sections, the background section is short, and is pure history (no background on locomotives, etc. ). Dave (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added links for roadways that currently have Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, Hawaii Routes 76, 93, and 95 (Fort Weaver Road, Farrington Highway, and Kalaeloa Boulevard respectively) don't have their own articles at this time, according to this list.
 * The split between the "Background" and "History" sections is deliberate, as the former describes the history of previous mass transit projects in Honolulu not directly related to the HHCTC, and the latter deals with the HHCTC itself. Musashi1600 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, maybe a better title for that section would be "Previous attempts", "Related projects" or something like that. It's not that big of deal anyways, my concerns are resolved. Dave (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Note from nominator: I'd just like to say that if there are any further comments/recommendations after now, I may not be able to respond to them until next Thursday or Friday (March 26 or 27). I'll try to keep an eye on this while I'm gone, but otherwise don't expect me to be back until then. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. With all due respect to everyone's work so far, I don't think this is up to standard. It's hard to get through for such a short article. As with many other articles I see here, the lead seems like almost an afterthought—it's banged together from facts in the article but it makes me want to stop reading. As Tony suggested, it probably needs some TLC from someone who cares about the topic but isn't familiar.
 * That banner is bad. We should never have featured content with a giant banner reading that the content will drastically change. If it will change that dramatically, then it doesn't really meet 1e, does it?
 * "The project, as planned, will construct ..." The project will construct it, or people will construct it?
 * "around the country" wikilinked to United States of America? No, please. Avoid easter-egg links.
 * "For more than 40 years, Honolulu politicians have attempted to construct a rail transit line." As above, I'm quite certain the politicians are not going to construct it.
 * "As early as 1966, the then-mayor, Neal S. Blaisdell ..." Would not "As early as 1966, then-mayor Neal S. Blaisdell" server the same purpose?
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Feel free to throw a good counterargument this way—statistically, I'm more likely to strike an oppose vote than maintain it—but this seems like a project that by its nature will render the article unstable from now until the HHCTC is completed. Using an example from the field with which I'm most familiar at Wikipedia, a film article nominated before its subject was even released would meet immediate opposition on the same grounds—as well as on the comprehensiveness requirement. Of course, assuming a very very strict reading of WP:FACR, almost any article would be disallowed from FA; few subjects have no new information written about them, but in this case there is a strong likelihood of further commentary between now when the project is completed. Steve  T • C 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1e states: "(The article) does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." That is true of this article, barring any new political action or construction.  Based on Laser brain's interpretation, this article won't qualify for FA for another decade, if ever.  To use examples from other mass transit projects, TriMet in Portland, OR is working on a new line for the MAX, LACMTA is working on extending the Gold Line and building the brand-new Expo Line, the MTA in New York has the 7 Subway Extension and Second Avenue Subway, BART is working on the Warm Springs extension, and so on.  Articles related to any of those wouldn't qualify for FA either.
 * All signs say this project will be built; the whole point of the charter amendment was to allow the voters to decide, not City Council or the mayor.
 * Regarding 1a, I don't know what more can be done for the article; it's already been copyedited twice (once prior to FAC nom, again recently).
 * Minor changes made per comments (delinked "around the country", fixed sentence introducing Blaisdell). Musashi1600 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.