Wikipedia:Featured article review/SkyTrain (Vancouver)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:33, 30 June 2010 [1].

SkyTrain (Vancouver)

Review commentary

Featured article review/SkyTrain (Vancouver)/archive1

Notified: WP Vancouver, WP Canada, WP Trains, User talk:Emarsee

Also notifed User:ThePointblank, as they did some work on the article after a talk page notification several weeks ago. Dana boomer (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the highest listing on Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Tags indicate dead links and unsourced statements dating from November and December 2009.

Intro needs a slight rewrite. It shouldn't begin with a two-sentence paragraph.
"The Canada Line's trains are fully automated, but are of a different design than the existing lines' Bombardier-built fleet, and use conventional electric motors rather than Bombardier's linear induction technology." — unsourced
"Recently, the entire surveillance system..." — when?
Entire "Security" and "Design" sections need copy edit; short paragraphs abound.
History section has some [citation needed] tags.
Controversy section should probably be renamed, but I can't think of a more neutral name. Aren't we supposed to be avoiding the word "controversy"?
"ICTS Mark I fleet" section is almost entirely unsourced.
"Bombardier Mark II train fleet" section and "Canada Line train fleet" sections are largely unsourced as well.
Wildbot shows two links to broken #sections.
Very large number of dead links.

I do not feel that a reversion to the way the article looked at its FA promotion will fix most of the problems, as there are still issues with unsourced content, two-sentence paragraphs and several now-dead references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify relevant users and projects. Dana boomer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should be listed at the top of the FAR, with links to the talk pages, so that others can verify notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the notifications TPH. I just realized that I saw and commented on the FAR less than five minutes after you posted it, before the notifications appeared in your contributions. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note two things: dead links are not a reason for delisting (there is a guideline for how to handle dead links), and many FAs were improperly tagged by Mattisse. You should specifically list the problems and check the tags, as they aren't always correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out two whole sections that have only one source for the entire section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it controversial information that actually needs a cite, however? Even FAs don't need to have every sentence referenced - just "where appropriate" according to WP:WIAFA. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:When to cite, which is the page linked from WIAFA that details the necessary spots for referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are a couple sections I have specific issues with:

"With the recent fleet expansion of 48 cars to accommodate ridership growth SkyTrain has reconfigured most of the Mark II’s (new and old) into 4-car trains to provide more capacity with the same number of trains (55) at the same headway (108 sec.). With plans for an additional 24 cars at some point (subject to TransLink’s funding capacity), SkyTrain plans to likely further increase the number of 6-car Mark I’s in the overall ripple effect of maximizing the number of cars in service and overall service to SkyTrain passengers." — When is "recent?" "plans to likely further increase" is an awkward split infinitive. "Ripple effect" sentence seems like it needs a cite.
"There had been plans as early as the 1950s to build a monorail system, with modernist architect Wells Coates pencilled in to design it; that project was abandoned." — existing [citation needed] tag from before I touched the article; this one seems like it does need a citation
"This seat is popular with rail enthusiasts." — Is this even needed?
"The system however caused passenger confusion as well as extensive train delays." — Not cited, should be.

I'm sure I'll dig up more. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to be blunt, not every single sentence needs a citation. More amount of time was spent adding {{fact}} templates to the article than simple removing one or two words to fix the problem. I've looked over the nominators history of FAR and disagree with many of the reasons he chooses including some of the trivial ones here. It also appears that unnecessary excuses are being made to demote this article. Honestly, putting {{when}}, instead of removing the word 'recent' and looking at the very citation for that sentence and putting in the date, that was actually included in the citation template is really, counterproductive in terms of the work it takes to do that there and the come here and report the entire sentence in a quote. The article is informative and well researched. Mkdw ^talk 05:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the part where you say "keep"/"delist"/etc. That would be if and when this is moved to FARC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If editors feel that the article should be kept, however, they are free to express that here. If a strong consensus is gained that includes uninvolved editors, the article may be kept before moving to FARC. It is true that keep/delist "votes" shouldn't be made in this section, but there is a very thin line between saying "keep" and giving a reason (as above) and saying "This article meets FA criteria and doesn't need to be moved to the FARC section" and that line is occasionally crossed by users inexperienced with FAR/FARC (and is not really a big deal if it is crossed occasionally). Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - nothing going on at the moment, needs more citations. Tom B (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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