Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SkyTrain (Vancouver)/archive1

SkyTrain (Vancouver)
I have expanded, cleaned-up and copyedited this article significantly. It covers all aspects of the tpoic, and is well referenced. I think it's a good candidate to become an FA -- Selmo  (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment News sources are not cited correctly, making it harder for a reader to locate the source should a link go dead. For example: is a dead link, but no publication date is given, making it harder to find this newspaper article in a library or in hard print. Please double check that all sources are complete.

Why is a Main template used in Lines in operation, while a See also template is used in Expansion lines? Main is for summary style; see also is for further information that has not been linked within the text. Canada and Evergreen lines are mentioned in the text, so aren't needed as See also, and should be listed as Main if this article is summarizing information in those articles. Sandy (Talk) 10:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I used a see also template for expansion lines because the bit on the Broadway extension has no separate article, so that section wouldn't be summarizing any other article all the way through. I'll add publication dates to the news sources. Thanks for your input. -- Selmo  (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the news references now have dates. -- Selmo  (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: unless I missed it, I don't see any information on whether lines are elevated over streets or in former railroad rights-of-way. The link to "at-grade intersection" implies that there are some; how does this work on a rapid transit system? I also don't see anything about yards and other maintenance facilities. --NE2 02:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments as I go:
 * "world's longest transit-only bridge" Does that mean mass-transit only?
 * Yes. Will clarify.
 * I don't know if any guideline backs me up (WP:SS?) but I personally think an article just reads better if longer (prose-wise) sections are earlier. Some flow issues with the current section layout too, for example it talks about the specific lines before it gets to the "lines" section that actually introduces the lines.
 * I'll reorganize the article
 * Starts talking about "One-zone tickets" without explaining what a zone is. Also, doesn't explain that tickets are bought from an automated system until it's already been discussing the lack of turnstyles and so on for a while... just kind of left me wondering how people were supposed to get tickets in the first place.
 * I'll explain in the article that a fare zones measure the distance one travels.
 * "Transfers from buses" might link to an aritlce on buses in Vancouver, if one exists.
 * There is a further information link at the top of the section
 * "The SkyTrain was one of the first fully automated rapid-transit systems in the world, and remains the longest today" really seems out of place in the paragraph about the route... should be in the history or even the intro.
 * Will do
 * I have two major general concerns though. First and most actionable, this article needs something on public reaction. Even if everyone loves the SkyTrain, the article should say that. But I imagine there's at least some criticism, and that should be covered in a well-balanced encyclopedia article. Also there's little to nothing about it's larger role in Vancouver. Right now the article addresses the history and technical details of the system, but little on how it fits into Vancouver - does it substantially help traffic? Does it reduce the need for surface parking? Does it reduce emissions for the city? Do other cities see Vancouver's system as a desirable solution to be emulated? Do citizens take any particular pride in the transit system? I think this general type of coverage would add context for non-rail enthusiasts/people from Vancouver and is what would make this a featured article, as opposed to just a good, technical article.
 * Well, in that case, this article isn't ready for featured status. Researching and writing a reaction section does take time.
 * Second, and this is less actionable obviously, I'm hesitant to support a FA about a topic with so much future work planned. I mean... if this becomes a FA, the article will need serious updates to still cover to topic accurately in 2009/2011/whenever they finish the new lines. If that doesn't happen, FA status wouldn't be appropriate then. So you see my hesitation to support something that will just be a FA for 2-4 years unless someone does a lot of future work. --W.marsh 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Your concerns are good, and I will address them. I'll renominate this later -- Selmo  (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)