Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manila Light Rail Transit System

Manila Light Rail Transit System

Well, after slightly over a year of work, this article which I started from scratch, I think, is ready for featured article status. Admittedly, this is a self-nomination, and any comments are welcome. --Akira123323 10:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for obvious reasons. --Akira123323 10:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to see a few points addressed before I give my final opinion.

There is too much image over-crowding in the lead section.
"The LRT network" should atleast have a paragraph in addition to the image.
A lot of date wikilinking that will hardly provide any additional relevant information to the reader. (See WP:DATE)
Although not specifically as a criteria, I feel that the History section has a lot of red links. If possible, write short stubs on them.
The "Incidents and accidents" can be presented alternatively as a paragraph rather than a table.
If the "Code Yellow 1,2" refer to actual shades of yellow, show them.

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partially done. I wrote a paragraph on the LRT network (which includes the hours of operation, special schedules and maintenance), and I wrote a stub on the Philippine National Construction Corporation. Some dates will be eliminated per WP:DATE (still deciding on which ones, although all important dates will be kept, like the opening dates), and I'm thinking of reverting the incidents/accidents table back to bullet form, which was how it was originally (although I'm not sure if I should make them into subsections instead). Also, the Code Yellow codes do not correspond with any color (they are merely a notifier of the status of LRT operations via the PA system). Anyway, it's still a work in progress. ~~--Akira123323 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)~~ --Akira123323 13:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm trying to make a comparison between this article and the current rapid transit FAs (Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), MTR and London Underground) over the image crowding, since both the Singapore MRT and the MTR have more pictures than this article in the lead, while the Tube article has two pictures and an infobox. I'm not sure how to resolve the image crowding with respect to those three articles. --Akira123323 13:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a serious problem. I have raised the issue on MTR's talk page. Let's see what is other editors' opinion on this. Anyway, keep up the good work. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support but comment. I need to see the following addressed:

1. Give a list and links to all articles of the stations in LRT.

2. If possible, obtain a list of the trains and the companies who made them in one table, then we must find out about them by linking.

3. As what Mr. Saxena suggests, the History section has a lot of dead links.

4. As opposed to what Mr. Saxena Suggests, The Incidents and Accidents must be presented as a table but each accident must have an article about it (even stubs) and it must be linked to this article.

For a Philippine Featured Article, Everything!!! - Justox dizaola 12:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of the kinks were solved at PR (for me). --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is fine. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in the description section, shouldn't the image caption, just go in the caption area under the image - the image + caption take up a lot of space as is.--Peta 00:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:Comment: Presuming that the image being discussed is the so-called MRT-2 picture, I can trim the caption if needed. --Akira123323 01:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant the Image:Lrt routemap.jpg--Peta 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm trying to maintain the present size of the picture to maintain station name legibility, although if the size of the picture becomes a problem, I can shrink the picture. --Akira123323 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Done. The picture has been shrunk from 300 pixels to 250 pixels, while maintaining station name and line name legibility. --Akira123323 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, see below for my comments regarding the issue of the size (physical size) of the description section. --Akira123323 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's an overuse of headings: half of the headings are a single paragraph. Some of the sections need to be sorted out and others merged where necessary. For instance, the "Future expansion" should be a single section without the multitude of subheadings. Same thing for "Station facilities". The System map of the Manila LRT image should be formatted like a normal image and doesn't need a fancy legend since the two LRT lines are clearly represented on the map. Take the caption text about stations and length of the lines and merge it into the actual text of the article. --NormanEinstein 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Some subsections have been merged and the LRT system map has been reformatted, although it is still at the center. Caption text has been merged into the text. <--Akira123323 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC) --Akira123323 02:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Subsections have been merged and the LRT network section has been reformatted. The map now aligns to the left to reduce the space that the section took up. --Akira123323 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The images taken from the LRTA website should have links to the original page and the original image so people can check the source. Do you have any photographs of your own that can be added to the article? The LRTA's pictures are a little drab. --NormanEinstein 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do, although they are in the individual station articles (two involve empty Yellow Line platforms, one train boarding and one station exterior). Most of the pictures in this article and in a majority of station articles are LRTA pictures, due to the LRTA's ban on photography in the LRT (see the "Rules aboard the LRT" subsection under "Safety" for details).--Akira123323 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yeah, addition of the link(s) for the original pictures for all pictures taken from the LRTA is done. --Akira123323 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support well written, sourced. Should be able to get FA status. Mopper ^Speak! 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well structured, many nice photos and contains key information. Ronline ✉ 10:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, give yourselves a pat on the back for this one. :) - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]