Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago 'L' 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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [1].
List of Chicago 'L' stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a comprehensive lead, lists all stations (including planned/future stations) uses color where appropriate and contains an appropriate graphic representing geography. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Wow; it's a wonderful list. That's all. Cheers, TBrandley 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Oppose per the below concerns of The Rambling Man, NapHit, and Arsenikk. TBrandley 17:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- A lot of the opening dates need references.
- In progress Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a more specific opening date for Berwyn than "1916-17"? Or the two Green Line stations that opened in March 1894, for that matter?
- Working on it but still coming up with zip Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be a symbol for terminal stations in addition to the shading per WP:COLOR.
- The list doesn't distinguish Metra transfers from 'L' transfers, which could be confusing to some people. Either those should be distinguished in the list or something should be added to the lead about the different types of transfers.
- It seems like almost every other train station FL has pictures of some of the stations, and I think pictures would help this list too.
In progressDone! Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Howard should be marked as a transfer station.
- I didn't list Howard as a transfer station (Belmont, Fullerton, etc.) because all of its lines are already in the "lines" category and anything in the transfer column would be a duplicate. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're still transfer stations, though; even if you don't put anything in the transfer column, they should be marked. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't list Howard as a transfer station (Belmont, Fullerton, etc.) because all of its lines are already in the "lines" category and anything in the transfer column would be a duplicate. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great list, and very close to FL quality; the referencing issue is the only major problem I can find. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The table should be accessible. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In progressDone! Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Oppose Not all of the Open dates have references, why?
- Nudge, is this going to be resolved? If not, my oppose stands and I recommend you withdraw the nomination until you can reference everything adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, okay, I take the hint. I hereby permanently withdraw the nomination. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
NapHit (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Oppose based on the concerns raised by TRM and Arsenikk. NapHit (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by Arsenikk (talk)
Glad to see station lists back at FLC—it has been quite some time now. Arsenikk (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Last part of the second paragraph lacks references. Arsenikk (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This section was originally longer but had to be cut down due to constraints on the length of the lead. References exist for an expanded and more detailed version, but I doubt there are any for the large scope of the paraphrased version. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there must be some references, especially the finalization in 1926. From reading the old version I also see that 1926 is not mentioned, but that a new line in 1943 is, which seems to contradict the current statement. That is among the reasons why a reference would be much appreciated. Arsenikk (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "finalization" mentioned was just that of the basic structure, which happened in 1900. The new line referred to in the next sentence is the Westchester bracnch. As stated in the paragraph, the system expanded outward until '26, that is, the line in 26 was the last line into new territory. You are correct in that there was an error. The Westchester branch had a line extension in 1930 that I had forgotten about. The "1926 line" was indeed in the older version, but it remained hidden as a note (and actually misidentified the line) because the existent list was getting to be long and repetitive. The 1943 line previously mentioned was the State Street Subway which traveled alongside/underneath preexisting 'L' lines, so its opening doesn't represent outward expansion.
- I can get references for individual openings, but I don't know of one (a reliable one, that is) that outright states that the mile-long extension of the Westchester branch would be the last extension into new territory until 1969.
- I'm not sure how to address this problem. Advice is appreciated. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there must be some references, especially the finalization in 1926. From reading the old version I also see that 1926 is not mentioned, but that a new line in 1943 is, which seems to contradict the current statement. That is among the reasons why a reference would be much appreciated. Arsenikk (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This section was originally longer but had to be cut down due to constraints on the length of the lead. References exist for an expanded and more detailed version, but I doubt there are any for the large scope of the paraphrased version. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.