Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amtrak/archive1

Amtrak

After reviewing this article, and noticed its several awards for good presentation, i place article up for nomination on the Featured Articles. It deserves the spotlight thanks to all it's contributors. --Drumlineramos 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. 4 citation neededs in the first section. This alone tells me the article needs a lot of work. I suggest withdrawing, dredging up some sources, and a peer review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
object while it is good, my first thought is that there are far too few references for an article of this length and with this large a quantity of numeric/technical data, and those that are listed are shown in at least four different formats that I can see. The list data that is included from the start of the "Amtrak routes and services" section through to the end needs better formatting and more and better prose to explain the data that is there (for example, the two external links listed in the "Gaps in service" subsection are very poorly formatted). I'd rather see this article go through a massive collaboration in WikiProject Trains to improve it (like was done with TGV before its FAC nomination) before coming back here. Slambo (Speak) 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are a lot of things needed to be done for this article to get FA standards. I will list some of it here:
- Per WP:EL, please do not put external links that are unecessary, such as forums, third-party commercial sites, groups, anonymous sites, etc.
- There are still a lot of red links. Create 1-2 paragraphs of stub or just remove the wikilink.
- I see there are a lot of citations needed tags. Please supply those. I agree that the list of references is so thin for the size of this article. Consider also to use 3rd party peer-reviewed reliable sources. Avoid too many citations from the subject itself, as it may give too strong POV.
- Per WP:NOT, do not put too many lists, as the article does not serve as a list of routes, tracks, stations, etc.
- One stubby section for Labor dispute. Why is that so little? I think this section should be expanded more, as most of government coorperation suffers from workers disputes. I've put the expand section tag there.
- The history section suffers unreferenced statements. Please provide more inline citations there.

For the editors, please do not try to speedy fix the above issues. The article takes time to shape itself into FA quality one. After some improvements, please try WP:PR first, or ask somebody - a good copyeditor - who does not familiar with the subject to improve the prose. — Indon (reply) — 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if WikiProject Trains decided to collaborate on this, I would help. --NE2 09:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose-Even though is a well-written article, there is just lack of citations and references! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]