Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of UTA TRAX stations/archive1

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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [1].

---

List of UTA TRAX stations

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of UTA TRAX stations/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FL on similar lists of stations. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: A nice list that has all the basics, but a few picky details remain before the star can be added. The map needs alt text. Alt text added. The article fails to mention that this system is in the United States. Added Instead of "Presently, the 19.6-mile (31.5 km) network serves over 45,200 passengers a day...", cut out 'presently' and add the year for the daily ridership. Corrected Could a comma or two be added in the first sentence of the second paragraph to ease the flow and help the reader find a suitable point to take a breath. Broke the sentence into two sentences. "initially" should be moved further forward in the sentence about the art program. Moved The last sentence in the second paragraph needs at least one comma. Done Perhaps I am wrong or this is a subjective matter, but the use of 'would' to describe past tense seems a bit "sticky" and hinders the flow of the prose. Consider "saw" instead of "would see" etc. Done "three station" should be hyphenated (three-station). Re-worded In the second-last sentence of the lead, it should be X miles of track. Done "Jurisdiction" should be left-aligned, not center-aligned (internal consistency). Similarly "jurisdiction" and "projected completion" in the second table. Done I take it you have checked thoroughly to make sure that the ridership figures for each station have not been published? Not all authorities do this, but if they do, then those numbers should be added. I have been unable to find statistics for boardings at individual stations from an official UTA source. If one becomes available, I will add those numbers at that time. I always like to see either distance or travel time to the "hub" so the reader has a better understanding of distance in the network. I have left this out of this list because I personally feel that that type of information is more appropriate for the individual line pages. However, I am more then happy to include it here if there is a consensus on the issue. "Light rail" is overlinked in the future section. Delinked The second sentence needs a comma or two. Done The length of the additional track to be added is mentioned three times, and seems to have two separate values. Corrected There seems to have been established consensus at AfD that at least commuter/transit stations that are under planning should in general not have an article until at least construction has started or opening is imminent. This is especially the case for light-rail stations, so I would have though all the planned stations would fail AfD as of 2010. I would therefore propose de-linking the stations, under the understanding that they become re-linked at a future date when sufficient information exist that the stations could have their own article. Thanks for commenting on this as I was not sure as to whether or not to show all of the station redlinks. All have been removed and will be re-added when appropriate. There should not be a space after the endashes in the "projected completion" column of the planned stations section. 'Gardner Village' and 'Redwood Road' both should have endashes instead of hyphens. Done Is there any map available of the future expansions (geographic or schematic)? I have not seen a properly licensed and available copy of a map of the future expansions, and I also do not have the personal capabilities to create one. In several of the references (notably 1, 6 and 14–18) use an endash instead of a hyphen for punctuation. Done Arsenikk (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to look and comment on this. It is appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 This is a really nice-looking list. Here are my thoughts and suggestions: "Twenty-three more stations" - I think additional instead of "more" would be more encyclopedic tone Done "and increase the overall length" - and would increase, since this is still speculative and subject to change Done "All of the stations along the UTA TRAX network are open-air structures featuring passenger canopies for protection from adverse weather conditions designed to resemble the canopy at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building.[5]" - a little awkward, this could currently be read that the weather conditions are designed to resemble the canopy, etc., etc. I suggest All of the stations along the UTA TRAX network are open-air structures designed to resemble the canopy at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, and feature passenger canopies for protection from adverse weather conditions.[5] Reworded "The line would see the construction of a pair of infill stations with the opening of 900 South in 2005 and Sandy Expo in 2006 as a result of demand for the new service." - change "would see" to saw; also "the" is superfluous in "the new service" Done "The University Line would commence service on December 15, 2001" - change "would commence" to commenced Done "It would then see a three station expansion open" - besides the "would" structure, this is awkward. What saw anything? There's no proper subject. If you are referring to the University Line, perhaps The line would be better to replace "It". Suggest: The line expanded in April 2008, when three new stations opened between... etc. Done Remove spaces between indicators in the tables and their entries (no space before asterisk and dagger) and superscript the dagger to avoid crowding, since it's at cap height. Done The Airport Line color and the University Line color appear almost identical; can anything be done to correct this? Are these the official colors? If not, why use two reds and two greens? If so, perhaps it might be more helpful to make them more distinguishable, as WP:ACCESS isn't going to like the red and green combo anyway. At this point no "official" color has been assigned to the Airport Line. The red is being used as it will connect into the existing University Line which does use red as its official color, so it was defaulted as red. The colorbox could be removed altogether for the Airport Line at this time since there is not an official color, but it may look weird since all of the other lines in the list have a colorbox. I am fine with any sort of consensus that is reached regarding this issue. Since there is no official assignment per se, I think that it would be better to remove the colors for all incomplete or pending lines until a reliable source established them. If they do use red and green later, they may be subsumed into another line and that makes this easier, or if they are not, we can deal with it at that time. That is, after all, why we have talk pages. Cheers KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Works for me. I have removed the colorboxes for the proposed and UC stations and will add them as the do become official in the future. Thanks again or the insight!Patriarca12 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to look and comment on this. It is appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support pending resolution of Eubulides' comments on alt text. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop. Not quite sure what you mean by "full stop." Can you please elaborate? A full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I can't believe I have never in my life heard a period called a full stop! Learn something new everyday! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) It's more of a British English thing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) "designed to resemble the canopy" any reason why? Added reference to its historic nature in Downtown SLC. Not convinced the lines need to be in smaller font. For this I will have to get some help from more experienced editors familiar with the syntax of these types of templates. However, in this case I feel the slightly smaller font does work as all completed stations are on at least two lines making the table easier to follow horizontally across the table. However, I am agreeable to any consensus made about this. Initial sort (if by name) is incorrect as Central Pointe should come in front of Central Station. Corrected. Planned stations, sort per station, I'd expect 500 West before 1100 West. I could not get the syntax to properly work, therefore I made the column unsortable. I'm not even sure how Projected completion currently sorts... I also made this column unsortable since there is such a broad range of dates. This can be changed as more specific completion dates are established in the future. Ref 1 should use an en-dash, not a hyphen, in its title. Corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks again for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. I was asked to look at the alt text. The alt text for the first image doesn't convey the gist of the map, namely that the routes form a rough T shape with the University line across the top, the Sandy/Salt Lake line on the left arm and going to the bottom, and the Murry/Midvale/University line on the right arm and going to the bottom, with the free fare zone on the left arm, etc. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more guidance here. Two of the alt text entries contain details that can't be verified just from the image, and which need to be removed or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Proper names and WP:ALT#Verifiability; these are "Salt Lake City" and "Siemens Light Rail Vehicle". The phrase "large, white piece of public art" is pretty vague: it could describe a snowman, for example; see WP:ALT#Essence. The image File:UTA TRAX and FrontRunner at Night 1.JPG appears to be purely decorative, and I suggest marking it with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. Eubulides (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The alt texts have been changed to best fit the guidelines linked here. I hope they will be satisfactory! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that looks good. Wow, I didn't see the elephant until the alt text mentioned it: that's funny! Eubulides (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Everything looks great, nice job. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 19:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - looks good—Chris!_c/t 03:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.