Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jordanhill railway station/archive1

Jordanhill railway station
Meets all the criteria - Lets roll with this --Nick Catalano contrib talk 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Mi kk er ... 02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good job! Some minor fixes needed:
 * 1) The info in note 3 is repeated at the end of the lead. Either delete the former or the latter. (I suggest the former)
 * 2) "The 2005 book White Rage, by Campbell Armstrong, includes scenes at this station." should either not be included or put in a trivia or "in popular culture" section. (doesn't fit under "History")
 * Comment Wow...our millionth article has gotten so much attention that it's a FAC in a week. Just wow. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Impressive work in a week, but object:
 * 1) No discussion of station itself: building materials, architectural qualities, etc.  Possibly a map of the station interior would be helpful here.
 * 2) "The 2005 book White Rage, by Campbell Armstrong, includes scenes at this station." - is there some significance to this?  Why is it in the "History" section, of all places?
 * 3) "In the area" can't really qualify as a fully formed section (or as actual prose, for that matter).
 * 4) The gallery looks out of place in such a small article.  If the pictures cannot be positioned within the text, perhaps they don't need to be included, as we already link to Commons?
 * 5) The narrow-wide-narrow set of templates at the bottom should be arranged in a more aesthetic fashion.  Maybe remove the third one entirely, as I don't really see what it adds to the article.
 * Finally, some more information on the type of trains servicing the station&mdash;both currently and throughout the station's history&mdash;might provide some more substance to the article; but this isn't strictly necessary. —Kirill Lok s hin 02:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object, quite inadequate at the moment -- needs information on the history of its construction, e.g. who designed it, how much did it cost, physical improvements through history, etc. How many employees does it have? etc. And I concur with Kirill Lokshin on some of the aesthetic concerns. Well-referenced, but the paucity of physical references suggest that the current article is mainly a result of combing internet sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose one minor point is this It is located near the Jordanhill Campus of the University of Strathclyde and the Jordanhill School  then it repeated in the In the area section complete with links. Gnangarra 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support issue addressed Gnangarra 01:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe an article doesnt need to be the work of a literary genius, given the historical number of this article and simple prose. It highlights that there are a significant number of this style of article within wikipedia, it recognises the efforts of all editors. An article like this one would also attract more editors and increase the involvement of others simply because anyone can do this. Gnangarra 01:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Needs to have some discussion of the actual station, but the progress this article has made is indeed impressive. RyanGerbil10 05:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. I admire the enthusiasm, but this is not featured material. The history section is too long relative to it's importance to the topic and there's almost nothing else in the article. The article practically needs to come out and say it is an unremarkable station because the length of the article makes it look as if it is more important than others. You could cite the article in one of the Glasgow papers that was mentioned in the Signpost. The in the area section needs to either be rewritten as prose or removed and just allowed to stay in th Jordanhill article where it is more appropriate. Don't fill the article up with fluff to make it featurable, just make it the best it can be. - Taxman Talk 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - it would probably be best to refer this back to WP:PR for a period of maturation. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Refer to peer review. Good try, but valid issues have been raised, and in the process of fixing them, new problems will undoubtedly crop up. Get this on PR, fix the article, then call us when you're done and we can comment on PR. Then we can go to FAC. :) Johnleemk | Talk 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not close to FA quality. I agree with many of the points raised above including those by Christopher Parham. Interior and exterior photos of the station itself, more historical background (historic designations, if any) regarding its construction and use, anything else that makes this subject worthy of a stand alone article. A good starting point IMO is Union Station (Los Angeles), which is not in FA shape at present but has a good foundation in place. I'd withdraw this and put up a PR for now.--Lordkinbote 20:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Just one of twenty reason? It's currently on peer review and failing in many aspects. --  user:zanimum
 * Object. It's short, its peer review was short, it has many one-or-few sentence paragraphs, and things like the book note should either have a "References in popular culture" section or not be mentioned at all. Staxringold 00:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I didn't mean to come off negative, the article has made amazing progress and is very nice for a small train station. It just needs more work and time is all. Staxringold 00:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Article feels much too short right now, and I think was nominated prematurely due to all the excitement around it being the millionth article.  Although the article is good for a small, random station, it feels too small at this stage.--Ataricodfish 02:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. If it weren't the millionth article it wouldn't have even been nominated. It's a very comprehensive article for such a little-known place, but it's not of featured article quality. Seeing as the article is only a week old, it probably still has a chance to become featured ... just not yet. AmiDaniel 04:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. It's a good article and I'm designating it as such (since the FAC appears unlikely to succeed this time).  It's well referenced although a printed reference or two would make a good addition.  Mainly it's just too brief for an FA. Durova 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Maybe a GA for now but not a featured article. It needs a thorough peer review to fix many shortcomings but I can see it going places. American Patriot 1776 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per all, but primarily because of the "Gallery" section. How is it significant to the article? An additional load of fair-use images just doesn't cut it. Also, it could be expanded. Otherwise, keep up the good work and renominate the article in a few weeks. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object The article is high quality, but subject is too small for an FA. ike9898 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This objection is inactionable and therefore is invalid. Johnleemk | Talk 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst this is evidently a pretty good article, and is arguably of FA quality, do we really want to put this same article up on the front page when everyone already saw it just a short time ago when it was the millionth article? I wouldn't want to deny a great article the status symbol of FA if it deserves it - but perhaps we should wait a few months before we actually stick it onto the front page. SteveBaker 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because an article is an FA doesn't mean it will appear on the main page immediately. Johnleemk | Talk 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object It's a good article, and i find no flaw with it, but it lacks the "wow" factor that a FA needs, it's by no means exceptional. NorseOdin 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It may be short, but come on, it's a railway station. How much info can there be to tell? A Clown in the Dark 17:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Although a front page could wait... ~Linuxerist L / T 13:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)