Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SkyTrain (Vancouver)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

SkyTrain (Vancouver)

[edit]

old nom

In much better shape since last time. It is now the best article on the subject available on the internet. I know this because I spent alot of time looking for references. -- Selmo (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes are done, give me some time to fix the dates. Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not sure where the date problems are. They all appear to follow WP:DATE. -- Selmo (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unwikilinked dates in the references don't allow preferences to work. Trebor 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Selmo (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 22 and 34 still aren't right. Reading through the article:
 Done -- Selmo (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction of the Canada and Evergreen lines is underway. - very subjective to the present. Better would be "construction began in xxxx on the..." or at least "As of 2007, construction...".
  • Are these Canadian dollars being used? If so, perhaps make it explicit the first time by using CAD$, given the pervasiveness of U.S. ones.
  • Given the length of the article, the lead is arguably a bit long, and delves into unnecessary details at times. Try trimming it to a crisp two paragraphs (maybe three) and try to make it more general.
  • A third line - The Canada Line is under construction until November 2009. - missing a second dash after "Line"? You probably want to use em-dashes as well.
  • Overparagraphing in places. For instance, I don't think it's worth starting a new one just for the sentence beginning When not in use.
  • It was originally built in 1985 - was it built again later? "Originally" seems redundant.
  • When it first opened - again, was there a second opening or is "first" redundant?
  • Is there any reason that "Expansion lines" is a lot longer than "Lines in operation"? "Expansion lines" again has a lot of stubby paragraphs.
  • Busby + Associates Architects - should that be a "+"?
  • Why is "history" right in the middle of the article? To me, it would make a lot more sense straight after the lead, as it would provide background for the rest of the article. Is there a plan to your ordering?
Haven't read through it all, but it could probably do with a copyedit. I can't support for now. Trebor 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (sorry for delay). I think this meets the criteria. Trebor 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see several problems with NPOV and comprehensiveness. Both the Canada Line and the Milennium Line were strongly opposed on grounds of cost-effectiveness, route selection, disruption to local businesses, and environmental impact. Many people in the region, not to mention taxpayers from other parts of B.C., consider SkyTrain to have been a poor technology choice compared to light rail or even buses. The Milennium Line provided yet another method to get from Broadway & Commercial to New Westminster, while two of the most important destinations in the region (Central Broadway and UBC) have no rapid transit at all. There should be a description of the controversies.
    I can't just write down criticisms of the project without citing sources. maybe the people have complained, but if nothing's published, it would count as original research. NPOV requires that all significant (ie. published) viewpoints are represented. I'll look around nevertheless. — Selmo (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course criticisms we include must have been previously published. The newspaper archives have lots of material on this. An article like this should be based as much as possible on independent news coverage and independent scholarly studies, rather than government publications. Kla'quot 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just remembered the blurb about the millennium line being called a "skytrain to nowhere" at the end of the history section. Perhaps I'll see what around on the web. — Selmo (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples of problems:

    • Handwaving: "Over the years, violence and drug abuse has been a major concern, but TransLink says the system is safe." This needs to be much more quantitative and explicit.
    • There is no discussion of crime rates in neighbourhoods around SkyTrain stations, particularly residential burglaries.
    Give me some time, I'll add it in. — Selmo (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Predicted completion dates and budgets are stated as facts rather than forecasts, e.g. "It will cost $970 million."
  • Projected costs of engineering projects are opinions, not facts, even if they come from the government ;) Attribtuting the opinion, e.g. "TransLink expects it to cost $970 million" is necessary. Even better would be to include other points of view about what the costs are likely to be. Kla'quot 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless I've missed this, there seems to be a discussion of capital costs, but not operating costs. SkyTrain operating losses, and SkyTrain debt servicing costs, are huge.
      I'll look, but if TransLink hasn't said anything, I cant report. WP:OR. — Selmo (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did projects meet expectations? There should be a discussion of forecasted versus actual ridership and forecasted versus actual costs. The purpose of SkyTrain is to give people access to their destinations, reduce traffic, and manage how the region grows in terms of land use. Has it succeeded? Kla'quot 10:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be awesome. This could be a very valuable article; maybe other cities will learn from the Vancouver experience and make better planning decisions because of it. Kla'quot 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's been done so far

[edit]

I have created a "controversy" section, and I have added most of what has been asked for above. I still need to find something on the crime, though.— Selmo (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Progress has been made, but the controversies and the issue of cost-effectiveness still need more coverage. I've suggested some sources on the Talk page. Considering the richness of the source material and the hundreds of millions of dollars involved, we need to go beyond simply stating that there are opposing viewpoints, and help the reader evaluate the substance of the controversies. The article relies too heavily on websites and The Buzzer. There are far better-quality sources available, but they're not on Google. Kla'quot 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more information, using newspapers form the VPL website. — Selmo (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)/archive2&oldid=1136095508"