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


 * 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

List of Nanjing Metro stations

 * Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am putting forward this list as a potential FL. I've been working on it since late last year, and I believe it fits the FL criteria. I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions on how to improve the article if you disagree. Thanks to all reviewers in advance! haha169 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
 * Looks great, well written article. I made some tweaks to the wording of the lead.
 * There is an issue with station number. The list has 126 stations but the lead says 139. This discrepancy should be fixed. Also since this article is about stations themselves, we should not count one station multiple times for each line that goes through it. Maybe this is the root of the discrepancy?
 * Under lines, start date should be opening date. Grand Total should just be Total.
 * The lines table should only include lines actually constructed (or only the parts that are constructed), and totals adjusted for accordingly.
 * Again in the stations section, we should not double or triple count transfer stations, since this is a list of physical stations.
 * The list sorts by line image a bit weirdly, can this be fixed?
 * No need to include stations in both tables, for example Nanjing South Railway Station is there twice.

Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments! I've gone and fixed them thus:
 * Regarding the station count discrepancy, I went and compared this list with the official station list at Nanjing Metro's website, and after confusing myself back and forth with math, I think I've finally figured it out. Without counting interchanges, there are 128 stations -- two were mistakenly left off the list and have been added. Counting interchanges, there are 139. I've changed every instance to reflect 128 stations, although the note mentions the 139 figure.
 * I changed opening date to start date, and grand total to total.
 * I moved the under construction lines table to the under construction section; does this move satisfy your concern?
 * The way I've designed the list to sort is, from top to bottom: interchange stations, L1 stations, L2, L3, L4, L10, LS1, LS9, and alphabetical order within each category. I'm open to new suggestions if this is not intuitive.
 * I've included stations in both tables because not including it in under construction would hide the fact that parts of those stations are currently under construction in order to add platforms for the new line.
 * Thank you again for your review! I really appreciate it, and it helped me catch an error that I really should have caught before listing this list. Please let me know if my fixes and replies satisfy your concerns! --haha169 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No prob, looking very good. Just a few more little discrepancies. You say the number of stations is 128, which now matches the number of stations in your list, however the next line says "with 105 stations on the system's five urban lines and 25 along its two S-lines" 105+25 = 130? If a station is double counted you can add "and x intermodal stations" or something like that. This occurs twice. Other than that, it's the only problem I can find! I haven't done a source check, but formatting looks in order. Mattximus (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a note after each instance that leads to this sentence: "Discrepancies between these figures are explained by interchange stations. If interchange stations are counted once for each station line they serve, there would be 114 urban line stations, 25 S-line stations, and 139 total stations.". --haha169 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Thanks for satisfying all my questions, as long as source review passes, this is a great list! Mattximus (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful review! It means a lot! --haha169 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just realized that you forgot one of my points. You have strange issues on sorting by line number, I suspect is has something to do with the use of "data-sort-value=" as it is only the interchange stations that are out of order. I see you want to keep the interchanges at the top (I would strongly suggest you just sort by line number, with the interchanges at the top of each line), but if you want your method, at least the interchanges should be in order. Mattximus (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't really understand how you want me to sort the interchange stations. Unfortunately, sorting by line number is messy, not least because of the S-lines, so I came up with the current arrangement, which is to list the interchanges by alphabetical order. Each interchange has at least two lines, so I don't know how I could order by line. Could you please explain your suggestion again? --haha169 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The best would be something like this:


 * 1-2, 1-3, 1-3-S1, 1-10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ....

or if you want to keep your way and have the interchanges first, they should be in order

Mattximus (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1-2, 1-3, 1-3-S1, 1-10, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10.....
 * Done, thank you so much for your helpful suggestions! --haha169 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is better, I would just switch the order of Gulou and Nanjing South Railway Station, and then it's much more consistent. Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that was a mistake on my part. Fixed it! --haha169 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review! --haha169 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, the sort order is much better now. Mattximus (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – All of my comments have been resolved and I think this meets FL standards. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  15:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.