Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jordanhill railway station/archive2
- 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:45, 22 November 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/Jordanhill railway station/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Jordanhill railway station/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
A very well done article on a topic one wouldn't expect such quality from. The article was nominated for good article status in March 2006, resulting in it being listed. The article was reassessed in August 2008, and it was again deemed worth of the status. The only major editing note since 2006 was a debate on the naming structure for British railway stations; it was temporarily moved to Jordanhill (railway station) after a very brief discussion, and soon moved back. And yes, this was the millionth article on Wikipedia, thus why it ever was polished this much. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I'm not yet convinced on the "very well done" part.
- Most images lack alt text.
- Most external links are dead.
- Most ref dates are Day Month Year; change the rest to that format.
- Some refs say "Retrieved on date", and some say "(Accessed date)". In general, the citations bounce between manually-typed and {{cite ___}}-generated, which causes inconsistencies like that—either use consistent templates or drop them.
- Is there no more info for ref 16 (The Herald, 20 August 2001)?
Thankfully, there's no dab links. --an odd name 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above and comments below. Polish it outside of here and bring it back later. --an odd name (help honey) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The words "side platformed" would be better removed from the first sentence and the subject of another sentence. Amandajm (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per AnOddName; most sources are no longer operational, and almost all citations are poorly formatted. Further, at least one of the images is lacking proper source information, and has been tagged accordingly. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Has potential, but needs a lot of work. The lead doesn't include anything about the history, despite that being the longest section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -
- A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. I have not looked at the sites in terms of reliablity, as there are a lot of deadlinks.
- : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.