Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of G:link stations/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

edit

List of G:link stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): New9374 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I created the article and think its on par with similar lists. I am a relatively new editor. This is my first nomination. Please excuse my inexperience. I would appreciate any assistance. Please note I cannot find any detailed ridership figures besides those in the lead with inline citations. Please note I cannot find any distance figures; the article previously included figures that were original research but I removed them. New9374 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gonzo_fan2007
Lede
Tables and Key
  • I am not sure the paragraph in the Key section is needed. All of the info in this paragraph is readily stated in the tables, and thus seems repetitive. I would recommend removing.
  • I would recommend using different symbols for each transfer station, like † or the {{Rint}} template.
  • Remove the Park and Ride column in the main table, as it doesn't provide any useful info (all of the stations have 0 park and ride spaces).
  • Zones are mentioned in the table but not explained in the lede. I would recommend explaining what zones are, how many zones there are and how many stations are in each zone.
  • I would recommend removing the Time column. If you want to keep it, you need to mention the time is in minutes [i.e. the column name could be Time (in minutes)] and include a {{Note}} explaining it (i.e. that the time builds up from the first station at Gold Coast University Hospital). Also, the Time column should be unsortable {i.e. !class="unsortable"|Time).
  • Have the future stations been designed enough to include their Grade and Platform Layout (similar to the main table)?
    • done difference. Added, sourced from Moore, Tony (20 July 2014). "All aboard – GC light rail takes off". Brisbane Times. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 10 June 2016.. New9374 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to consider adding a See Also section and linking Public transport in Australia (note the piped link to the section) to help readers.
  • You may to consider adding {{South East Queensland public transport}} to the article (and maybe linking this article in the template).
Sources
  • All sources look good and are reliable.
Files

Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small copyedit here, fyi. Hope you don't mind! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, only Shiftchange will know for certain, but what would the likely reader of this list be wanting to know? While some of the readers will be train spotters and fascinated by the G:link stations themselves, I suspect the bulk of readers will be people planning on catching the G:link and wondering where they should get off. I suspect many tourists will want to get off at Cavill Avenue being the heart of Surfers Paradise. And I imagine both the hospital and the GU campus will probably be popular destination for some folks. And if I wanted to go to GCEC or the casino, I'd want to get off at North Broadbeach. If I wanted to go to Pacific Fair, I should go to South Broadbeach. Maybe you want to create a separate column for Local Attractions to avoid linking the station name itself (and there might be multiple things to link, e.g. casino and GCEC). Given the Gold Coast's status as a holiday destination, I think local attractions are more important for this list than if this was a list of suburban tram stations in a non-holiday town. Kerry (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done difference. Added, sourced from "Stations Archive". RideTheG. Keolis Downer. 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016. New9374 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted some of the tourist attractions from the list because I don't think they're sufficiently notable and are tangential to the subject of the list, and because Wikipedia is not Wikivoyage. Thanks, New9374 - you've done a good job improving this list! Gareth (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undone difference. Hi Gareth, unfortunately you cannot delete some of the tourist attractions just because you don't think they are sufficiently notable. That selection criteria is ambiguous, subjective, and unsupported by reliable sources. Kerry asked me to add tourist attractions to the article and so I objectively added all the tourist attractions from the official G:link website. If you would like to remove them all from the article though, for the reasons you mentioned, then that's fine, please discuss it with Kerry. And once you two reach consensus, I will edit the article accordingly. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't think selection criteria applies to this discussion; the list is of the G-link stations and their selection should conform to the criteria. I don't think it applies the column on attractions (I wouldn't call them "tourist attractions" as hospitals and universities aren't really tourist attractions). I agree with Gareth that using all of the things in the official G:link guide is maybe too much (out of proportion). I'd had been thinking more in terms of a smaller set of local "attractions" that would attract significant numbers of people (readers). It's not unusual for Wikipedia articles to limit lists to things-that-have-Wikipedia articles as a basis for judging notability ("if it's that important, why hasn't someone written the article?") and I think that criteria would prune it down to a more manageable list. I note too that you can pipe the wikilinks to reduce some of the length of the names, e.g. "Sea World" instead of "Sea World Resort & Water Park", and you could probably reduce "shopping centre" and "shopping complex" to "shops". And I think the one uncited sentence about ghost tours in the Southport article probably fails the notability test. And finally I would point to the fifth of Wikipedia's pillars, no matter what a rule says, improving the article is what matters, which is imprecise but generally resolves itself through discussion and hopefully consensus. I sense you are frustrated that you cannot move quickly to a "final version" for FL status but this to-ing and fro-ing is normal and does take time. This is very new article which therefore won't have many watchers yet, so it may take some time before people who might have an opinion come forward. Remember too that a lot of Wikipedians are not active on a daily basis. Given it's a very new article, maybe you want to draw it to people's attention at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Getting just a few opinions might not really represent consensus. Kerry (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
difference. I have re-named the column "Attractions nearby" as per the official G:link website. Why don't you think selection criteria applies to the column "Attractions nearby"? They are still lists even if they are lists within a list. Using things-that-have-Wikipedia articles as a basis for judging notability is unacceptable because there are notable things that do not have articles yet. Please provide an example of a featured list that uses this as a basis. Using your example, Sea World Resort & Water Park is a resort that adjoins the theme park Sea World, and the official G:link website states that the resort is an attraction - not the theme park - so you are arguing for including attractions that are not supported by reliable sources. There really is no need to seek many opinions from noticeboards, etc, when precedents have already been established in the nineteen already featured lists of stations and this nomination has already recieved support. Please don't guess my feelings. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I have invited Shiftchange, Gareth and Mcz7 to discuss the inclusion criteria with you Kerry. And once you four reach consensus, I will edit the article accordingly. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kerry Raymond

Could the table have the lat/long coordinates for the stations restored please; they appear to be in this version of the G:link article. Could look at adding a {{GeoGroup}}to show the set of locations on Google Maps, Open Street Map etc. Thanks Kerry (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need worry too much about minor differences in lat/long especially once you are at 4 decimal places and beyond; it makes little difference in practice. And the techtonic plates can move at up to 10cm or so a year (although generally less so here in Australia), so all lat/longs become less accurate over time anyway. Kerry (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, New9374 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - there are a few issues with the list, but shouldn't be hard to address

Mattximus (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: thank you very much for reviewing this list. It has been gone without reviews for a while now and I almost gave up (hence the delay in my response). Hope I've addressed your concerns. I'm very open to changes. New9374 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I don;t have time right now to review again but I will strike my oppose. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_G:link_stations/archive1&oldid=1089080149"