Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington Metro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Washington Metro

Somewhat of a self nom; I think this article is pretty worthy. A GFDL map, lots and lots of photos (thanks to User:Schuminweb), LOTS of history and operational information, and the child pages (the lines) are quite well done too. --Golbez July 8, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Looks very good (great work with all the crisp GFDL pics), but I'd like to see the {{ref}} and {{note}} system introduced. I know this would have come up at some stage, but clearing that up may stop any oppose votes. I'll have another look and vote after this is done. Thanks. Harro5 July 8, 2005 05:40 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I figured that might. I'll get on it, but a question - what's the best way of saying "This reference applies to this entire section"? --Golbez July 8, 2005 06:16 (UTC)
• Oppose. The top two pics shouldn't be side by side - they completely mess up the formatting of the top part of the article. The lead section is a mile too short. Speculation about new additions and the accidents section far outweighs the entire history section. More generally - the article is quite good in some specific areas, but seems to leave out a lot of more general content about the network, its stations, etc - it feels like there are some large holes in it. Ambi 8 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)
  • Has there been a peer review at all? If so, please link to it. Harro5 July 8, 2005 07:36 (UTC)
    • Past discussion has established that the community believes PR is not a formal requirement for FACs. Phils 8 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)
      • Oh I know that, I just wanted to make sure we're not re-addressing points already discussed elsewhere. Thanks for the link though. Harro5 July 8, 2005 11:04 (UTC)
• Comment - I've expanded the lead slightly, I referenced the hell out of it, and I added a lot of info on stations. I also juggled the pics a bit to help the top flow more. --Golbez July 9, 2005 01:30 (UTC)
• Object. References are not properly formatted. Phils 9 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)
• Object. Must include information on the unusually strict rules and enforcement on the Metro. In January of this year the Metro board considered removing the seats on the train, but this very important possibility is not mentioned. See the following articles in the Washington Post:
  • "Mouthful Gets Metro Passenger Handcuffs and Jail"
  • Eating incidents
  • "Squad's Officers Target Metro Scofflaws"
  • "Metro Police Get More Leeway Handling Traveling Snackers"
  • "Youthful Snackers On Metro Get Break"
  • "School May Punish Girl Who Ate in Metro Station"
  • "Metro Snack Patrol Puts Girl in Cuffs"
  • Other
  • "Between Metro and Cell User, a Disconnect: Officer Shoves, Arrests Pregnant Woman Over Loud Call"
  • "Metro Officers Keep a Keen Eye on Riders: New Behavioral Profiling Techniques, TSA Training Help Target Suspicious Subway Passengers"
  • "Metro Considers Removal Of Seats: Standing Room Would Increase"

Neutrality^talk July 9, 2005 14:58 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Nothing from any architecture critic about the rather remarkable architecture of many in-city stations (and nothing identifying any of the architects who designed it). Nothing about the escalator at Dupont Circle (which I believe is, or at least was when it opened, the longest single-span escalator in the world—and with a wonderful view as one emerges). Nothing about how construction was originally financed. Nothing about the decision not to have a Georgetown station. Nothing about influence on its design by the successes or failures of any other city's system, nor about what aspects of it were innovative, or what unusual technical challenges were involved in building in a historic city. Nothing about its influence on any other systems. Nothing in terms of demographics of ridership except the total number of daily riders. And the only comparisons to other systems is one, in passing, to New York. In short, while it's not a bad article, there is an awful lot more that could be written here. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)