Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trams in Adelaide/archive1

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 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Trams in Adelaide

Self-nomination: A comprehensive article on Adelaide trams. Currently listed as a good article and has been helped along by the recent peer review. Well referenced with all free images. Appearsto meet all of the featured article criteria. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this article is not quite good enough for FA in my opinion. I don't think the article is as well-written as some of the earlier FA candidates that have come from Adelaide - It's almost there and the good work on the article is commendable, but needs substantial work before an FA grade would be justified. What I would like to see is:
- Proofreading and writing - I'm not an expert or knowledgeable on this subject, but from a preliminary read, it is obvious that there are inaccuracies in the article - for example, the article says in one place that the last tram in Adelaide was purchased in 1953. Considering that the Flexicity trams began service in 2006, I don't see how this could be correct. I would like to see the article rewritten where possible to make it an excellent piece of writing as well - (the lead is good though).

Doing... - this was an oversight as the sentence only referred to the trams purchased by the MTT so the paragraph was correct but incomplete. Now extended - Peripitus (Talk) 11:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be done, but the rest of the page needs proofreading too, but I would expect that would be done after you've fixed the remaining sections. Good work anyway. JRG 04:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- History - this is my major concern. There really isn't any substantial information on the history of trams in Adelaide - it only tells me when lines were opened and closed, and how far they extended. Information on the need for trams in Adelaide isn't there. Why, for example, was there a need to build tramways at all in Adelaide? What prompted the Government or private companies to build the lines in the first place? All the good Wikipedia articles on railway or tramlines in the world tell us how and why the networks were built in the first place (see MTR, or Singapore MRT. While I wouldn't expect masses of exquisite details (that would be the place for the particular line articles, were they ever to be written), I would think some substantial information on the background to the construction of tramways in Adelaide would be necessary.

Done- creation of the network and change to electric network added. Will hopefully get the next two bits sorted tommorrow night. I've deliberately not added information on the physical track construction as there was nothing unusual at all about it.- Peripitus (Talk) 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - There's also no information on the history of the network between 1909 and the 1950s when the network closed, apart from the mention of the MTT and the rise of the motorcar and bus services in the 1920s. What happened in these fifty years? Any extensions to the network (and if so, when and why)? Anything else that's interesting or notable?
  - There's also no information on recent history of the network - for example, I know that there were options in the 1970s/80s to extend the Glenelg line underneath the city through tunnels and on the present O-Bahn route out to Paradise and the northeast of the city, but this didn't go ahead. Perhaps some information on the Governmental attitude towards trams would be good (in modern times - it's already well covered on the decline section in the 1950s).
- Headings and sections - the headings and sections are a bit of a mess. If I can make a suggestion, I would move your sections around into the following (don't use my wording though): history of the tram network (subsections on horse-drawn trams, then electric trams, then trolleybuses, then decline, then recent history); tram infrastructure (on the tram vehicles themselves); then a short section on the status of trams at present and the future of trams in Adelaide.
- Timeline - it doesn't serve have a purpose as the information is already covered elsewhere in the article - I'd get rid of it.

Done - personally I like timelines as they are a quick reference guide but I can see the point about duplication - Peripitus (Talk) 08:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Tram vehicles sections - Some more work is needed here - some of the tram types are written adequately (eg. the Types A, B and E) are quite ok, but the rest could do with some expansion - maybe tell us what lines they operated on, etc. The Flexity paragraph, despite being the most recent tram (and probably the one with the most information available on it), is only two lines and is unreferenced (though I suspect it's a very recent edit). I wonder if you might think about a better way of presenting the information - the table and information being separated isn't ideal.
- Maps - can you redo the maps so there is a better indication of where the tramways extended to - in the electric tram map, for example, none of the extents of the southeastern suburbs are labelled. For someone not familiar with Adelaide's suburbs, it's quite hard to work out where these lines would have gone.

Done - at least for the Electric tram map. I think the horse trammap is probably detailed enough already - Peripitus (Talk) 08:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Pictures - any chance of some pictures for the current status section (like of the Glenelg tramline)? There's some on the Glenelg Tram page if you want to just transfer them across, although the current tram extension would provide the opportunity for some photos (or just go and take a picture of a typical Glenelg tram stop)... the tram vehicles section would also be improved with some more pictures.

These are some suggestions - I hope these can be taken on board. I'm not too worried about the pictures, but everything else I would like to see fixed before I will change my mind. If you want suggestions just ask. JRG 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the indepth commentary - I'll (hopefully) sucessfully address these in the next day - Peripitus (Talk) 08:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—needs a copy-edit. I've done the lead as an example of the density of work required. Some of it arises from personal preference; most doesn't. One inline query. In particular, it's significantly over-linked. Delink dictionary words such as "garden", to focus your readers on the high-value links. Tony 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and thanks for the editing. Re-reading the article in light of the above comments shows me that it's not up to standard. I'll be working on it this weekend but I think it's unlikely that it'll be near ready soon enough - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.