Portal:Trains/Selected article candidates/Talk archive
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Portal:Trains. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Articles promoted
This one was a Featured Article candidate back in November, but didn't quite make it then. Since then, there have been a number of improvements to address the objections, but it's ready for here right now. slambo 16:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak support, it's quite good but is almost entirely about North American passenger cars. Since no-one seems to have come along since November to write about European or Asian passenger cars, another idea might be to spin most of the content into North American passenger car or something like that. JYolkowski // talk 21:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here's another article that's a current WP:FA but it hasn't been on the front page in a long time. slambo 20:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. JYolkowski // talk 21:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another good article that failed the FAC process, but is still very good. This describes one of only a handful of railroads in the US that decided to electrify freight operations. slambo 19:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
A thorough overview of Ireland's rail transport infrastructure and operations. I'd like to see more photos, but the text is quite complete. slambo 19:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
A complete article about Romania's railway network - recently got promoted to Featured article status. Ronline 07:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support, but this article is currently scheduled to appear on the Main Page on July 22 (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2005), so the next two weeks will probably be a little too early to show it here too. slambo 19:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
A very good, albeit somewhat short, article on what is probably the most famous station in North America. slambo 13:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
A good overview of a locomotive model that was popular in North America. slambo 13:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This is a current featured article that was featured on the main page in March. I think it's been long enough to feature it here now. slambo 15:53, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. JYolkowski // talk 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Self-nom. This article was promoted to featured status this week. slambo 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I worked quite hard on this article. As a new wikipedian, I do not know if nimating own articles is correct and up to ethiquette of Wikipedia. If not, please correct me.
CCMichalZ 03:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Self nominations are encouraged by all means (and I've watched as this article has improved tremendously from my first read), but right now
weak objectbecausethere are no references listed andthe text needs a quick copyedit to fix some minor grammar errors. Slambo (Speak) 12:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)- The reference list is now done. Few other improvements were also introduced into article. CCMichalZ 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the references (although if it's going to go on to WP:FAC, they should be formatted following the guidelines at WP:CITE). I'll take another close look later this week to check the grammar issue I noted earlier. Slambo (Speak) 15:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I got through a couple sections in a copyedit. There's more that needs to be done, but it's good enough now for the Portal. Slambo (Speak) 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The reference list is now done. Few other improvements were also introduced into article. CCMichalZ 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Good looking article, notable historical figure. EASports 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support It's significantly expanded since the last time I looked at it. It's at least B class now (and I just tagged it as such), and there's plenty of information to put into an SA blurb. Slambo (Speak) 17:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Self nom. I started this article when I noticed the red link in the lead section of Union Station (San Diego) as I put that article in line for the selected article. This article just passed GA status. Slambo (Speak) 15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Originally a translation from the equivalent German article, this article has steadily improved, especially since the station's official opening in May. This article is very close to GA level, lacking only additional references. The edits have calmed down enough that this can now be used as a Selected article on the portal. Slambo (Speak) 11:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I see no reason to oppose this article becoming selected article. CCMichalZ 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This article should be considered because it is considered to be the "grand-daddy" of all rapid transit systems in North America. It's age, history and size (both ridership and trackage) warrant it's promenant placement at the Trains Portal of Wikipedia. -- The Real Zajac 17:15, 12 Nov 2006 (PST)
Although it could use some work in footnoting (there is a list of paper references at the end), this appears to be a complete treatment of the subject. Slambo (Speak) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, seeing as I'm here... This just today made it to FA status, and is an interesting, well written article about a long-forgotten early urban rail network, which is mostly unknown even by those who use its successor every day. – iridescent 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And another... Although I've a semi-COI in nominating this one as I wrote an early version of it, the current article has changed almost beyond recognition. This was an experimental article to test the concept of merging disused stations in a town with the currently open station, and given the number of people who poured time into trying to make the concept work (the jury's still out on whether it did work), it would be nice to give it a day in the sunlight, and hopefully to get more people involved in either making the test concept work or explaining why it won't. Currently at GA and unlikely to reach FA any time soon, but it could still make it... – iridescent 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The TTC, one of the few public transit authorities that still use streetcars today. Toronto is a very important city, shouldn't the TTC be one too? Devrit 19:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
A former Good Article nominee, it was not listed because there were a few items in the review that were not addressed before the nomination period closed. As far as I can tell, the outstanding issues are one {{fact}} tag, a concern that the image of the text message might not be appropriate fair use and that it doesn't significantly add to the article, and a concern that the discussion on PTC is not necessary for this article (because this is about the collision and not PTC). We should be able to fix the overlooked reference, and I'm ambivalent about the text message image, but based on what I've read about the accident, the push for PTC in the last few months is a direct result of this accident and therefore it is relevant to discuss it in this article. Slambo (Speak) 11:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- With another derailment currently at the top of the news section, this suggestion is held off for at least this week. Slambo (Speak) 11:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Appeared as week 9 selected article. Slambo (Speak) 14:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
As with everything User:DavidCane writes, I came away from this thinking "hey, this sounds really interesting". As a German-British-American he's of potential interest to a wider audience, too. – iridescent 23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the most obscure and short-lived rail lines ever built, yet also one of the most influential. I'm surprised this one hasn't been featured already, but I can't find it in the history. – iridescent 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Probably the main reason it hasn't appeared is that it is currently B-class and does not have the TWP banner on its talk page; I've been working mainly from FA and GA-class articles first, and then moving on to B-class when there wasn't a sufficient FA or GA to feature. As to this specific article, I agree that it is "selected-worthy", and have added the banner and updated the week 36 entry to feature it. Slambo (Speak) 11:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It is the largest and enjoy's 99% monopoly of railways in India.It is the largest and the busiest single railway company in the world.It is a former featured article of Wikipedia. --Sharadbob (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- This article appeared as the selected article in week 37, 2005. I like to wait at least a full year before featuring an article again, and since we're coming up on the four year anniversary of its previous appearance, that makes this article eligible again. I notice that the article lost its FA status in January, and there is some collaboration work being done by the India WikiProject. Can we get it back to FA before featuring it here? Slambo (Speak) 11:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad to listen to it and i'll try to get FA status to it before featuring in Portal:Trains.--Sharadbob (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but can I get two more weeks for developing the article to meet atleast Good Article Criteria?--Sharadbob (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, there are no deadlines for its appearance on the portal. Just put up a note to say when and we'll look again. Slambo (Speak) 10:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's been over a month and I don't see any maintenance tags or comments on the collaboration. It is still listed on the India collaboration page, but I don't see any further discussion on it. Has the editing stabilized enough that it can be featured here again? Slambo (Speak) 10:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but can I get two more weeks for developing the article to meet atleast Good Article Criteria?--Sharadbob (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad to listen to it and i'll try to get FA status to it before featuring in Portal:Trains.--Sharadbob (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Posting as a single suggestion, as the three articles are necessarily very similar so probably only one ought to run (or at least, leave long gaps between them); an object lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences, in how the splendidly-named Richard Plantagenet Campbell Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville wanting to make things a little bit easier for the horses transporting goods and produce around his lands and to & from the nearest rail station, inadvertently set in motion a sixty-year chain of cause-and-effect that ultimately led to the absurdity of a string of tiny rural halts two hours travel from the nearest city briefly becoming a part of the London Underground. – iridescent 23:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Used the Westcott article for week 19. I think the others are good enough to stand on their own in upcoming weeks too. Slambo (Speak) 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Used Brill for week 23. Slambo (Speak) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Waddesdon Road railway station is another completed one in this series, and the other two (Quainton Road railway station and Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station) should be done in the next couple of weeks, if you really want to overdose on Buckinghamshire. – iridescent 18:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is worth selecting this article since it has reached good article status and also the article contains some useful information. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Nominating Oxford Circus tube station - been promoted GA recently and has adequate content. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
London stations
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 08:22, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
Articles not promoted
China Railway DF5
China Railway DF5 Bredyhopi (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for nominating this article. While this article certainly has a good deal of information, there are a few improvements I'd like to see before we set it as the selected article. The selections in the last few months have been B-class or better articles. The lead section on this article (which is what we would use as the excerpt here on the portal) is a bit short for the amount of information in the article. For comparison, DBAG Class 128, EMD MRS-1 and British Rail Class 458 have all appeared as selected articles in 2019. The lead sections of these articles are longer, but not by a lot, so this should be pretty easy to flesh out. A little more concerning for me is that there are only four references listed on the DF5 article. The MRS-1 article has nine, but out of the three examples, that is the smallest; both the Class 128 and Class 458 have many more than that, with 35 and 31 respectively. With the 30-year production run of this locomotive type lasting into the 21st century, I would expect that additional references should be available without too much difficulty. If those two areas are improved, especially if it can get to B-class or better, I would be happy to promote it on the portal. Slambo (Speak) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- After a week, I see no change in the article. I know I've been busy with some family duties this month, so I see it can be hard to get back to volunteer work at times. I'll keep the discussion here for another two weeks. If the article is improved, it can be promoted. Slambo (Speak) 14:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- A featured article on one of the world's oldest and largest rail networks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs
- Support - A great article for me. In fact I would not include Indian locomotives into this article beside short note. I think the toppic is so wide it deserves separate article. CCMichalZ 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom - Ganeshk (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Like Indian Railways, this article was already used in the Selected articles section the week of October 9, 2005. See Portal:Trains/Selected article/2005 archive. Slambo (Speak) 12:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- A featured article on one of the world's largest railways. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
While this is a great article, it was already used in the Selected articles section the week of September 11, 2005. See Portal:Trains/Selected article/2005 archive. Slambo (Speak) 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The article has a decent amount of content; it's listed as a good article; and I think that it could be a featured article on the main page after the improvements that people will make on it during the time that it is the Trains featured article. 69.177.176.154 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Support. A great bunch of work and a lot of information. However, some parts need quotation. After fixing those small problems I shall give my Support CCMichalZ 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Forget about this: I just realized that this was the Trains FA for Week 14. 69.177.176.154 00:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The Caledonian Sleeper uses Class 90, and uses Class 67, depends on the overhead line electrification system. Timothyhouse1 13:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- While there is a good amount of text to this article, there are only three footnotes in the references section. This needs better referencing first. Slambo (Speak) 11:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Nominating Valhalla train crash - well documented article, good use of template and holds up even after a few months. Srwalden (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support, but — The article is well constructed and ordinarily would be shown in the selected article section. But, it is still in the news section and I try to avoid having the same article be the subject in two sections at the same time. Once it cycles out of the news section, we can make it the selected article. Slambo (Speak) 12:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- There must have been more rail news since the accident to move it down out of the portal's news section. I haven't gotten to really work on updating that section yet (too many other distractions... Squirrel!); as soon as we do get it updated, we'll promote this to SA for the week. Slambo (Speak) 02:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just cycled it off the news section a couple days ago, but I'd like to give it another week before it's on the portal in such a prominent location. Slambo (Speak) 02:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)