Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations/archive2

List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations

List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations/archive1
• Featured list candidates/List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations/archive2

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria at WP:FLCR, and is on par with similar lists at WP:FL#Transport. This is the second nomination for this list, as it was previously nominated last year, then subsequently closed and archived by an editor, with no further reasons given.

I previously worked on the following featured rail station lists: List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations (creator, main editor, FL nominator), List of Los Angeles Metro Rail stations (added new sections/updates), List of MetroLink (St. Louis) stations (nominated for FLC-removal, then "saved" list via reformatting/updating). I feel that this list is equal to those in quality and criteria. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a well-formatted list with a concise but complete introduction. There are high-quality maps of both parts of the system in the lede, and images illustrating the list. However, Checklinks shows that five Google News citations are dead links; this appears to be because Cox Media Group removed their holdings from Google News in 2015. Although offline sources are perfectly acceptable, for a featured list I think it would be better to have live links - even to subscription-only content - rather than none at all. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations have been fixed. Unfortunately I couldn't find any online archives for The Miami News (including subscriptions), so I just removed all the URLs from the citations. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gonzo_fan2007 Why do you use February 2016 as your average weekday ridership? Although accurate, it would seem to be better to report a full year's average, or fiscal year depending on how it is usually reported (i.e. average weekday ridership over 2015, or FY2016). - After reading the first nomination, I would recommend you just calculate the average for fiscal year 2014-2015 using each month's ridership report here. Just add up each months average weekday day and divide by 12, which should give you the full year's average. You could add a note explaining how you calculated this number based on the sources available. Picky, but I would remove "southern" in the first line of the second paragraph. When it was open, it wasn't a southern line of anything, it was the only line. I would recommend using {{dts}} for all dates in the lede, unless there is a prevailing reason not to. - Nevermind. How many stations were in the 11-mile segment? Probably should state that, since this is a list of stations article. I am not quite sure I understand the sentence "The initial 20-station Metrorail line opened for full service on May 19, 1985, following the completion of the final five stations through its terminus at Okeechobee station in Hialeah." I think the word "initial" is what is confusing me, since the initial line was the 11-mile segment. Could you clarify? How long was the 20-station segment in 1985? Would be helpful to know since you mention lengths in the previous sentences. "Since completion of the original line in 1985..." Again, wasn't the original line the 11-mile segment built in 1984? "The 2.4-mile (3.9 km) AirportLink branch and Miami International Airport (MIA) station in opened in 2012." Remove "in" or state where the station is in. It may be interesting to add some details about station design or amenities. Also, how many stations are above ground, at-grade or below ground? Not essential for my support, but something to think about. Let me know if you have any questions or need anything clarified. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) @Gonzo fan2007: Thank you for your feedback. All issues have been addressed, aside from the ridership. To go through 12 months of data for 42 stations to find an annual average would be very tedious and I don't see how it would add much to the article. Alternatively, I could remove the column entirely. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Ridership is definitely a good column to have. As long as it's kept reasonably updated - once every three months is fine, as that's a convenient comparison to APTA reports - one month of ridership data is totally fine. Many systems - especially those without AFC - base their official counts on a single day of data! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support All my comments are resolved. I agree ridership is important, no worries regarding the Feb. 2016 data being used. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments –

• "with additional five stations opened through Okeechobee station in Hialeah." This is missing "an" before "additional", from the looks of it.
• "Since opening of the initial line" needs another "the" before "opening". Or you could try "Since the initial line was opened".
• Would it be possible to include more information about reference 18? Without a date or page number, it's hard to say that this source is verifiable at the moment. What I don't understand is why the date was apparently removed. A page number would be optimal, but a date is a must for verifiability. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Typos have been fixed. I added the date back to the reference - it seems that another editor removed it by accident. I don't have a page number available. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support This is an exceptionally comprehensive and aesthetic list. With the above edits I am unable to find any deprecating issue. A deep scan indicates content is accurate and sourced, the article is lavishly illustrated with appropriately licensed images and other graphics, and the topic is treated fully and comprehensively. LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I read it over and it looks pretty clean. I couldn't find anything to change, except that there are wikilinks to Omni Loop in the table but not the lead. I think it should appear at least once in the lead. But this is so minor I will support regardless. Mattximus (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There aren't links to any lines (not just Omni Loop) because none of the lines have their own articles. The links in the tables just to lead to a station list section in Metrorail (Miami-Dade County) or Metromover. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review

All information appears to be adequately supported. Spotchecks show no copyvios. Formatting is good, with one question: footnote 19 gives the page as "p. Broward 1.", which looks odd. Is the "Broward" part correct? The only other thing I'd add, which isn't an FLC requirement, is that it may be useful to archive the weblinks in the references to avoid link rot. (See User:SchroCat/Web archiving for instructions on the basic process, if you wish). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the page format is correct because it is page 1 of the Broward section of the paper (referring to Broward County, as opposed to Miami-Dade County in which Miami is located). I'll look into archiving the other links. –Dream out loud (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)