Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations/archive2


 * 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC).

List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations

 * Nominator(s): – Dream out loud (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria at WP:FLCR, and is on par with similar lists at WP:FL. This is the second nomination for this list, as it was previously nominated last year, then subsequently closed and archived by an editor, with no further reasons given.

I previously worked on the following featured rail station lists: List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations (creator, main editor, FL nominator), List of Los Angeles Metro Rail stations (added new sections/updates), List of MetroLink (St. Louis) stations (nominated for FLC-removal, then "saved" list via reformatting/updating). I feel that this list is equal to those in quality and criteria. – Dream out loud (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a well-formatted list with a concise but complete introduction. There are high-quality maps of both parts of the system in the lede, and images illustrating the list. However, Checklinks shows that five Google News citations are dead links; this appears to be because Cox Media Group removed their holdings from Google News in 2015. Although offline sources are perfectly acceptable, for a featured list I think it would be better to have live links - even to subscription-only content - rather than none at all. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations have been fixed. Unfortunately I couldn't find any online archives for The Miami News (including subscriptions), so I just removed all the URLs from the citations. – Dream out loud  (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support All my comments are resolved. I agree ridership is important, no worries regarding the Feb. 2016 data being used. Cheers,  « Gonzo fan2007  ''(talk)  @ 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments –
 * "with additional five stations opened through Okeechobee station in Hialeah." This is missing "an" before "additional", from the looks of it.
 * "Since opening of the initial line" needs another "the" before "opening". Or you could try "Since the initial line was opened".
 * Would it be possible to include more information about reference 18? Without a date or page number, it's hard to say that this source is verifiable at the moment. What I don't understand is why the date was apparently removed. A page number would be optimal, but a date is a must for verifiability. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Typos have been fixed. I added the date back to the reference - it seems that another editor removed it by accident.  I don't have a page number available. – Dream out loud  (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support This is an exceptionally comprehensive and aesthetic list. With the above edits I am unable to find any deprecating issue. A deep scan indicates content is accurate and sourced, the article is lavishly illustrated with appropriately licensed images and other graphics, and the topic is treated fully and comprehensively. LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I read it over and it looks pretty clean. I couldn't find anything to change, except that there are wikilinks to Omni Loop in the table but not the lead. I think it should appear at least once in the lead. But this is so minor I will support regardless. Mattximus (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There aren't links to any lines (not just Omni Loop) because none of the lines have their own articles. The links in the tables just to lead to a station list section in Metrorail (Miami-Dade County) or Metromover. – Dream out loud  (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review: All information appears to be adequately supported. Spotchecks show no copyvios. Formatting is good, with one question: footnote 19 gives the page as "p. Broward 1.", which looks odd. Is the "Broward" part correct? The only other thing I'd add, which isn't an FLC requirement, is that it may be useful to archive the weblinks in the references to avoid link rot. (See User:SchroCat/Web archiving for instructions on the basic process, if you wish). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page format is correct because it is page 1 of the Broward section of the paper (referring to Broward County, as opposed to Miami-Dade County in which Miami is located). I'll look into archiving the other links. – Dream out loud  (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.