Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of London Underground stations/archive1

List of London Underground stations
I am nominating this page because it was promoted in 2005, and I feel that it no longer meets the FL criteria. The list does not meet the list critera 1.(c) "Factually accurate", or 2 (a) (the lead is too small). Recently, List of West Midlands railway stations was promoted, and is in much better shape and stucture than this article. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no specific references for any entry, with regards to the line, zone,, the date it opened, or its previous name.
 * The only thing referenced is the usage which is now three years old (I'm sure more up-to-date figures have been released), and that reference points to a footnote, which points to the reference.
 * Two of the external links are crufty
 * I changed the structure to be more similar to the List of West Midlands railway. On top of what Matthew Edwards mentioned, I believe Docklands Light Railway stations should be removed from this list, since there is already a List of Docklands Light Railway stations.-- Crzycheetah 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The new format is an improvement, I never liked the table broken-up by initial letter but had never got around to reformatting it myself - thanks.
 * References are now added. For opening dates these are either from a paper source or from a linked website. Rather than create a separate reference link for each station as the West Midlands list does, I have grouped these together using the notes section with the references linked there.
 * External links section removed. Some of these are now in the references section. Others didn't add very much.
 * Formatted the Further reading section to use cite book style for the book list
 * To Do:
 * Add Boroughs
 * Improve the selection of pictures
 * Expand the introduction
 * Add a note about East London line stations being closed for extension works
 * Add a map
 * Hopefully, these changes will improve the list sufficiently to enable it to retain its Featured list status. With regard to the removal of the DLR stations from the list - this was discussed back in 2006 (see here), when it was decided to keep them as part of the list. As the List of DLR stations article seems to have expanded since then, it may now be appropriate to remove the DLR stations.--DavidCane (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is looking better already. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All the above to do items 1 to 5 are now completed. In addition to improving the article, I believe that these changes now enable it to meet the 1(c) and 2(a) featured article criteria. --DavidCane (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I vote to keep a list I nominated? It really is a lot better than when I nominated it for de-listing, so if I can, Keep. And I don't see a problem with any pictures. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It looks a lot better than a week ago. Definitely up to par with other FLs. I'd still recommend getting rid of the DLR stations, though.-- Crzycheetah 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It definitely does. Is the usage only at 2006 for stations beginning A and B because of the time it takes to change the info, or because it isn't avaliable? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ..because of the time. Information for the "regular" stations is available here, but there is no info for the DLR stations.-- Crzycheetah 06:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, well when I'm bored, I'll do some of them. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - get rid of the images. They're overlapping the table on 16:10. Will (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Something needs to be done about the images. The table has expanded in width since I added them, and now the single table format means the single image per letter selection doesn't make sense. I've started a discussion about this on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As all votes, including that of the original nominator, are now to Keep, can we close this article's candidacy for delisting. --DavidCane (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)