Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of London Underground stations/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 19:42, 7 June 2009 [1].

List of London Underground stations[edit]

Notified: WP London Transport, Grunners, SilasW, Sunil060902, Chris j wood, Timrollpickering, DavidCane, Thyrduulf

Archive of Previous Featured List Removal Review - closed 25 February 2008
I feel that this no longer meets the requirements for some reasons.

A large reason is that in the lead (2 and possibly 3) it talks about the Docklands Light Railway has been included for integration purposes. I would like to make my continuing argument that the Docklands Light Railwauy is not part of the London Underground and even has its own list of stations. This was created on a previous suggestion but it seems to me pointless to have them twice. Another point on integration is that now the London Overground exists, it has a lot in common e.g. run by TfL, same ticketing system, appear on the London Underground map. As the London Overground is quite well integrated into the London UIndeground, should that be included here?

Separately, questions have been raised over one of the sources used - Clive's Underground guide. Does this count as reliable (whilst it may be useful) and easy to use? There is also a lack of adquate citations. All usage and dates should be referenced for example. Also, the photos i think should go in the table and there be one of every station, not just have an example of a station (which seems both LU and not) beginning with a letter of the alphabet.

4 and possibly 6. Simply south (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of those concerns could have been fixed by editing the article rather than nominating it for removal. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeKeep - As the previous comment suggests, the list should be edited and not removed (there is a National Rail stations list for London). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Oppose" mean? Do you mean "Keep"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify the criteria given above for removal of featured article status, the following are reproduced from Wikipedia:Featured list criteria:
2 - Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.
3 - Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.
4 - Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities.
6 - Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text. --DavidCane (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeKeep. I agreed with Jenuk1985 that the issues raised are not sufficient to warrant nomination for removal of the lists featured status. The current condition of the article is generally a result of the February 2008 review (see above), but reviewing each of the four criteria given above in turn, I believe the article still meets the criteria:
2 - Lead - I don't see that the lead fails under this heading as it clearly identifies the scope of the list and what is included and why. The issue as to whether the DLR stations should be included is different to whether the lead is correctly formatted with respect to the present scope. The inclusion or not of the DLR stations has previously been discussed on the list's talk page here, here and here (each time raised by the nominator) and without a clear preference to change being stated.
3 - Comprehensiveness - The list meets the criteria in this respect as it includes all the current stations identified in its scope and gives a thorough summary of the information relevant to each (lines serving station, dates opened, location, zone, previous names and usage)
4 - Structure - The list meets this criteria as it is alphabetically ordered and sortable on many of the columns. All stations in the list are linked directly to the relevant article. Section headings for notes, see also, references and further reading are provided
6 - Visual appeal - The list is appropriately formatted using tables and includes a number of appropriate images.
With regard to the wider issues raised, these are not relevant to the featured list status but are considered below:
Should the list include the DLR stations? In my view it should for the following reasons:
  • Most readers will not know the semantic difference between the London Underground and the DLR - they both appear on the map published by London Underground under the title tube map [2] without the DLR being specifically distinguished as different from the tube lines.
  • Leaving off the DLR stations would create an apparent gap in the scope of such a list.
  • The existence of a separate List of DLR stations does not necessitate the removal of the DLR stations from this list.
Should the list be called List of London Underground stations or something else:
Should the list include the London Overground stations?
  • There is an argument for this now that these services are also operated by Transport for London, but there is a distinction here that some editors might raise in that the former East London Line remains under the ownership of TfL whereas the North London line, West London line and Watford DC lines also served by the Overground remain in the ownership of network rail
  • It would, therefore, be comprehensive with regard to all TfL operated services
  • But whether or not the London Overground stations are included does not effect the current status of the list because it does not pretend to include them.
Adequacy of citations:
  • To put exactly the same citation against every single entry in the usage column would be ridiculous overkill - both in terms of visual appeal (it would likely lead to an argument that the list would fail on criteria 6 due to unnecessary clutter) and coding (it would massively expand the wikicode required for no real benefit). It is also unnecessary as the whole usage column is already cited via the note in the heading (see note [E]). The reference against note [E] gives the citation.
  • Adding a citation for every date would be overkill for exactly the same reason as for usage and would lead to even greater clutter. The same method of providing a note at the head of the column (note [D]) is used with explanatory sub-notes (*, #, † and ‡) as necessary. The multiple references against the sub-notes give the necessary citations.
Use of the Clive's Underground lines Guide (CULG) for the citations:
  • This is used in the article because it provides an external reference for readers to reach additional information on the subject. The use has been queried in the Featured Article Candidacy for the Great Northern, Piccadilly & Brompton Railway article and has been answered there. That said, CULG lists Doug Rose's map The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History amongst its own references. This gives opening and closing dates for all tube stations and dates when services changed between lines and it appears to have used for the CULG station opening dates and line changes. This map is already listed as reference 14 in this article, so most of the references 1-13 could be replaced by just this one. However, the wider information available at CULG makes it a preferable external and accessible source than the hard copy map.
Adding a picture for every station:
  • The provision of an image for each station was discussed on the talk page here in October last year and I commented that the additional code required to add the images would take the article to over 100,000 bytes (too large) and would significantly increase the download time.
--DavidCane (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Simply South separated from DavidCane's comments above for readability (text in [] added for clarification of what Simply South is referring to):
[Should the list include the London Overground stations?]

[There is an argument for this now that these services are also operated by Transport for London, but there is a distinction here that some editors might raise in that the former East London Line remains under the ownership of TfL whereas the North London line, West London line and Watford DC lines also served by the Overground remain in the ownership of network rail]

That is not the only thing they share in common. Ticketing systems (although that may be a grey area as it also covers areas not LO), branding (then again, leads back to tfl). Many of the stations that the current ELLE is to cover are to be taken over by LO.

[Use of the Clive's Underground lines Guide (CULG) for the citations]

[This is used in the article because it provides an external reference for readers to reach additional information on the subject. The use has been queried in the Featured Article Candidacy for the Great Northern, Piccadilly & Brompton Railway article and has been answered there. That said, CULG lists Doug Rose's map The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History amongst its own references. This gives opening and closing dates for all tube stations and dates when services changed between lines and it appears to have used for the CULG station opening dates and line changes. This map is already listed as reference 14 in this article, so most of the references 1-13 could be replaced by just this one. However, the wider information available at CULG makes it a preferable external and accessible source than the hard copy map.]

[Adding a citation for every date would be overkill for exactly the same reason as for usage and would lead to even greater clutter. The same method of providing a note at the head of the column (note [D]) is used with explanatory sub-notes (*, #, † and ‡) as necessary. The multiple references against the sub-notes give the necessary citations.]

There does need to be citation for the notes section.

[Use of the Clive's Underground lines Guide (CULG) for the citations] Then again, i could probably provide an external one, in good faith by Brown "London Railway Atlas" stating the dates. However, Clive's Guide is still an overreliance on one source, even if just for that area.
[Adding a picture for every station] This could be sorted by such as what has been done with the heritage railway stations list which would reduce it. Whilst some coding needed, image size can easily be reduced so loading is reduced. For example, see List of listed buildings and structures in Crawley
I would like to add that the use of citations and images fall well within the featured list criteria. Simply south (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Oppose" mean? Do you mean "Keep"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose the removal of its Featured list status so that would be synonymous with Keep. --DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This is a list of London Underground stations. " Featured lists don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted FLs, such as List of Muni Metro stations for examples of more engaging leads. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Dabomb87. Just start the paragraph explaining what London Underground is should be fine. And regarding the inclusion dispute, please deal with that on the talk page, FLRC is not the proper forum for that.—Chris! ct 02:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeKeep the removal of featured list status for the same reasons as given above, several of the concerns have been discussed (sometimes several times) on the talk page with consensus for the way things are. Others have not been discussed there at all. Regarding the pictures, my preference would be for one picture per station - I proposed this on the talk page and even produced a mockup back in October -see User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format. I notice that the nominator has not commented on this at all - indeed the only response received as not favourable. Given this unenthusiastic response I did not continue with the mockup which took a significant amount of effort to produce, although I note that in the intervening time the equivalent (featured) list on the does include pictures, and also attractions/landmarks near the station. This is not to say that I don't think the present version can be improved - for example I like the way the presents the line information. However this is not the appropriate place for discussion such as this - it belongs on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢

Firstly, for those who don't like this nomination please treat it like a "Featured List Review". People should try and see reasons for this nom and not just jump at Simply south stating various "keep" !votes. Here are my responses to Simply south:

  • Firstly I disagree with the argument that the DLR should be seperate. As for "[The DLR] even has its own list of stations". That is not an argument, the others do to just within their articles (e.g. London Underground Circle Line#Stations)
  • The matter of including of the Overground should be resolved on the talk page, but my initial reaction (I may be wrong) is that there would be too much Overground to include and make this list overly large.
  • I agree that "Clive's Underground guide" is not a reliable source. Clive states "it is mostly my personal matters and interests"[3] and while the infomation may be correct that does not make the source reliable. That said, if the books in further reading provide the same information I could see an argument for leaving them in as an immediately accessible source, and adding those books as general refs.
  • Images in the table? Not sure, that would also require a lot of image checking, as just because an image is on Wiki does not make it eligible to be there. See some recent FL image reviews.

And here are some points of my own:

  • The lead should be expanded. A bit of history about the Tube, for example mention first station/line to be used etc.
  • The note system is old, and should be updated to one with proper working backlinks etc.

I see nothing here that cannot be fixed up, but I think there are improvements to be made. If this was a current FLC it wouldn't have my support right now. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • Additional citations for notes section - I assume that the additional citations considered to be required by Simply South are against notes [A] and [B]. These can be found somewhere, I am sure.
  • Over reliance on Clive's Underground Line's Guide - Use of a single source is not inherently wrong if the information it contains is complete and accurate which I maintain CULG is. As I said above, the majority of the CULG refs could be replaced with a single reference to Doug Rose's map which gives all of the same information with regard to the tube stations and is listed in the CULG bibliography. Other sources would need to be found for the DLR stations and the opening dates of the main line parts of stations
  • Suggestion for method of inserting station images - could Simply South give a link to the Heritage railway article referred. The Historic Houses in Crawley is an attractive list but only has about 40 images in it. An image for each tube and DLR station would require about 310 images.
  • I agree with Dabomb87, Chris, Thryduulf and Rambo's Revenge that these issues should be discussed on the list's talk page. The lead can be reworked if required.
  • If we are going to treat the corrective process as a featured list review we should first end this FLRC. --DavidCane (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re your last point: There is no reason to end this. The FLRC process is basically the featured list review. We don't have a seperate process. Please do not worry about removal right now and focus on improvement. If all the comment are addressed, the outcome of this FLRC will likely be keep.—Chris! ct 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the FLRC director
  • First, everyone who !voted "oppose", please change it to "keep" for the sake of my sanity. Next, this process is basically like a combination of FA's FAR and FARC, so all actionable suggestions should be dealt with. I'm not going to comment on the list this moment, but Rambo's points are particularly salient. I'd also advise everyone to cool down because the list does have issues that need addressing. As for now, this FLRC will remain open so long as these problems remain. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate that the list is not perfect, there needs to be discussion on the talk page about most of the suggestions to determine consensus before implementation. Five days ago I started another discussion about the inclusion or otherwise of Tramlink, DLR and/or Overground stations on the list. Five months ago I started a discussion (with links to a demo) about pictures for each station. Both of these have received just a single comment, neither of them from user:Simply south who initiated this FLR. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually i did this in the middle of a busy period so i have not had time to look which i am doing now. Simply south (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- My main suggestion is that the lead be expanded to summarize the list more, and that the former names columns be in a format like Former name (date).--Truco 18:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added which sections i was replying to for clarification. There is also no review page so this seemed the most appropriate page. And the citations reply i moved to where i think i meant to reply to.

To DavidCane: For the heritage station list, see List of heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom and the subpages ({{lhrs-top}} and {{lhrs-entry}}) in which the code is located. When i said the notes section i've realised i forgot to say also (and mainly) the names column.

To Rambo's Revenge: the DLR station list was part of the point of integration as recently systems have expanded and now they, including London Overground provide (nearly) the same integration, sharing the things i said. Inclusion of Overground btw does not mean inclusion of other National Rail stations in London other than those served by LO.

To Thryduulf: I was not aware of the list on your userpage until recently and i can see your point on that. I do not see how my response to DavidCane was unenthusiastic, i just gave a list of some solutions and some other points.

Simply south (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "Unenthusiastic" description was commenting on the response to the mockup with images (David's comments and the lack of any other comment), not about your response to David. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REFRESH

Now found the time to try and address the issues raised above:

  • Firstly, as requested by the FLRC director, I have changed "opposes" above to "keeps". If that misinterprets anybody's opinion than please change it back.
  • Secondly, let's summarise the issues raised and note the proposed actions:
    1. Content - should the list include DLR stations or not and should the name of the article be changed to reflect its content - both to be discussed separately (again) at the talk page discussion started by Thryduulf. Please make your views known there.
    2. Lead - rewrite needed to conform to current "List of ..." good style as suggested by Dabomb87.
    3. Citations - needs work. But not clear how to improve this without the data in the list being lost in hundreds of reference labels. Perhaps Rambos Revenge could elaborate on how this might be managed. Is it really necessary to have back links from the notes section to every note label, if the only way to do that is a mass of labels cluttering the data?
    4. Name change column - restructuring of the column to give the dates for the previous names were applicable as suggested by Truco.
    5. An Image for each station - no consensus on this seems to have been achieved on this matter so I propose that no change be made until we can be satisfied it will not detrimentally affect the download time for the page. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not clear how the List of heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom article mentioned by Simply South helps with the issue of adding images to the article because that article contains no images.
  • Thirdly, assuming that the changes mentioned above are carried out, would the article meet the Featured List Criteria. I think it would pass.

If I've missed any actions add them below. --DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I was thinking that the use of code and on subpages could help to reduce the size. I know there are no images but look at the article\list. It is just a possible solution. Simply south (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the note/backlink issue, I was just thinking that having and notes like [a] and † given by [[#Notes|[a]]] etc. is quite a dated system. There are lots of current systems that could be used. {{ref}} would probably be the most similar to the existing system, but has the added benefit of linking directly to the relevent note. As for the actual referencing, general references are also fine, but currently it is not clear exactly what content in the table is cited. For example, the other names of stations should be cited, to avoid OR. Also have all those dates come from Clive's guide, because they should probably have a more reliable source than that. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All refs now link back to table. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into the ref template to see how this will do the job. I'm in the process of going through the other names column at the moment and am using two alternative sources for the names and for the dates:
  • Harris, Cyril M. (2006) [1977]. What's in a name?. Capital Transport. p. 25. ISBN 1-85414-241-0.
  • Rose, Douglas (1999). The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History. Douglas Rose/Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-219-4. (to check the above).
I will add the cites for these when the entire column is revised. The dates in the date column will be verified with Rose's diagrammatic history. --DavidCane (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

  • "in the United Kingdom serving"-->in the United Kingdom that serves
  • "It is the oldest underground metro system in the world with its first section having been opened in 1863. "-->Its first section was opened in 1863, making it the oldest underground metro system in the world
  • "but rises to the surface in the outlying suburbs, with approximately 55 per cent of its routes being above ground."-->and rises to the surface in the outlying suburbs; approximately 55 per cent of its routes is above ground.
  • "The system comprises eleven lines, serving 270 Underground stations"-->The system comprises 11 lines, serving 270 Underground stations
  • "The majority of the system is north of the River Thames with stations in the City of London or one of twenty-seven London boroughs."-->The system mostly operates north of the River Thames, with stations in the City of London and one of twenty-seven London boroughs.
  • Instead of arbitrarily linking some symbols, can you add a key above the table?
    • Symbols removed as part of the reformatting of the table. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CAPTION, image captions that are sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
  • What makes http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/victoria.html#dates a reliable source?
    • Removed, though I still need to track a source for the main line stations dates. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general references need last access dates.
  • Year ranges need two digits in closing numbers; for example, "1874–7"-->1874–77 Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system operates below ground in central London but rises to the surface in the outlying suburbs, with approximately 55 per cent of its routes being above ground."—"and rises". "with + noun + ing" ... try "; about 55% of the track is above ground". That's a different meaning (not whole routes above or below).
  • Pity some of the columns look messy, and although the pics look great, the trade-off is a squashy table. And the pics cover up the right-most column by a bit, so I can't see the footnote.
  • The obvious addition would be a map; surely there's a free-use one? Keep if all my colleagues' issues are addressed. Tony (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I intend to address the remaining issues over the next couple of days. The images issues is one that seems to affect some users but not others and doesn't seem to be attributable to a particular browser or screen size. I agree some of the columns look a bit messy and will be going through these to add breaks to try and get a regular presentation of the dates and lines. With regards to the map, there was one in the article before but it was removed - I think because of copyright issues but I will check. --DavidCane (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although a minor point, the number of lines and stations needs to be updated. Maybe there should be a mention of the number of DLR stations separately.
    • The number of lines and stations is correctly stated as 11 and 270 respectively in the lead. The number of DLR stations is listed in the lead - 40. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an image of the map of the Underground but it is very out of date and so obviously needs to be updated. Changes to be made are the stations around Shepherd's Bush\White City and the DLR extensions and additions. Maybe there should be a note on the zonal changes, especially as some stations may have been moved into another zone. Simply south (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I don't feel all my points have been adequately addressed. More serious things like the Clive's Underground unreliable source concerns me. There are also many other points that need addressing. For example, the sortability of dates doesn't work properly—it sorts as text not dates. Put simply, if this was a current FLC it would fail. Due to the multiple issues I think this list would benefit from the added scrutiny of another FLC if it were to be substantially improved, rather than seeing this currently sub-standard list scrape through a review. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sortability now fixed. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the timing of this review was not the best as it coincided with a FAC on an article I wrote. Rather than mutilate the current page, I have been working on upgrades in a sandbox, so that as many of the suggestions can be implemented at once. As I said above, I believe that the majority of these issues will be addressed in the next couple of days.--DavidCane (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that addresses all the issues raised above, except the map which needs to be sourced. The update on the usage statistics remains to do. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry but reviewing the changes, hasn't changed my opinion. The table has been made a lot wider, which has accessibility issues. Canon Street and Kentish Town have some things in the wrong columns, I'm not sure the "Mainline opened" column is relevent for a "London Underground" list. I realise you are still working on this list, but I'm also not sure the "Other names" columns is useful for many reasons. 1) If the station has more than one other name, sorting won't help identify it. 2) It will struggle to be comprehensive in giving all alternative names any LU station once has. I would prefer to see that information integrated onto each station page and removed from here. I realise this would be an enormous task (the first station I looked at [Euston] had no mention of its proposed name [Melton Street]) but I think it would be beneficial in keeping the table to the most important information and letting the station wikilinks provide the extra information. It would also reduce some of the wrapping within the table which IMO greatly reduce its visual appeal. Please note all my criticisms are based on the featured list criteria. I have recognised the good work you're putting into this, e.g. updating usage stats etc., and hope you continue. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've fixed the Cannon Street and Kentish Town columns. The errors were introduced as I was updating the usage stats in the last column.
        • For the reason you have noted, the other names column isn't sortable and never was intended to be. This column contains additional information to show the development of a stations name, and it is unlikely that a user is going to want to use the sort feature to search for a previous name. If they know the previous name they are almost certain to know the current name. Whilst the previous names information is already contained in many of the individual articles, I believe that this is one of the more interesting aspects of this list as it shows how much and how many times the system has changed over the years. On the matter of comprehensiveness, the Cyril Harris book "What's in the name" cited in note 4 gives the previous names and dates (along with the derivation of the name which I haven't used). The Douglas Rose map, cited in note 3, also gives the previous names but, to avoid just having one principle source I choose to use the map just as the source for the opening dates column and the transfer of operation dates. I do think it is rather odd to suggest improving a table by removing some of the information from it.
        • The mainline column is included to show earlier dates that a station was in operation with a railway company that does not form part of London Underground. For instance, the Central line stations on the Leyton to Epping branch were opened some 80 to 90 years earlier than the first service from the tube. I think that it is important for readers to be able to see that many of the stations are far older than their London Underground usage. To deal with the width issue, the column could be removed and its contents incorporated into the notes column, in the same way that the lines transfer information is handled.
        • On the issue of accessibility, the main problem appears to be the width of the screen that the table is displayed on. I have reduced the text size in the table and temporarily removed the images to make the table occupy the full width. Does that help?--DavidCane (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to revisit, however my opinion has not been changed. At the moment I see this as failing 5. Visual appeal. The table width's are still a problem (5a), and we now have no images (5b), is it not possible to have a PD tube map? I realise you are trying hard, and I commend your efforts but for me it is not there yet. The table width's are just about okay with the smaller text on my widescreen laptop, however when I viewed them on a desktop (when I was meant to be working) there were some serious text wrapping issues. I think having 3 separate date columns definitely contributes to this, and I wondered if they could be merged into one with some notes. Some more minor issue for me are that the note system still seems a bit strange, for example the "A." seems a bit random. Also the notes should have some ndashes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In ascending order of simplicity of solution:
    1. The "A" is just a carry over from the previous notation system and could be anything at all. How about "*"?
    2. ndashes – no problem.
    3. pictures - I commented these out to allow the table to fill the full width of the article space. Adding them back in as they were would make the column width problem worse. I could put a few selected ones at the top, above the list. I think the alternative - to add a column for images and put one in for each station would make the article size too great as the loading time is already dragging.
    4. reducing the number of date columns - My intention is to get rid of the second and third columns and add notes into the tube opening dates to indicate those stations which were originally served by a main line company before transfer to the tube. The DLR date list could be combined with the tube list as there are only three stations which are jointly served so there is little information to be lost. I haven't got around to doing this as the chore of recoding the table was one I was saving for a day when my brain was especially sharp, but I will get on to it now.
    5. PD tube map. TfL is understandably protective of its tube map, but there is a geographic version at File:London Underground full map complete.svg which could be used.--DavidCane (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments I don't think this is that far from a keep, but there are still niggling issues.

  • Most of the lead is verified by the referenced list, but we need to cite facts such as "Its first section opened in 1863, making it the oldest underground metro system in the world." and "The system operates below ground in central London but runs on the surface in the outlying suburbs. Approximately 55 per cent of its routes are above ground".
    • I see that this has been done by Chris - thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general references need to be formatted properly (last accessdate, publisher, etc.)
  • Blank table cells need em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once the DLR and main line date columns are removed, the only blank cells will be in the other names column. Isn't it implicit that a blank here means that there is no other name so an em dash would be unnecessary?--DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since this list has improved greatly since I last reviewed it, I think I should offer some comments.
    • The image looks ok, though I think a smaller map (sush as File:London Underground full map.svg) showing only parts of the metro system would work better here because it is a very complex system
    • I echoed Rambo's Revenge's suggestion of merging the date columns into one with notes - that would help improves its visual appeal
      • Working on this off-line to avoid leaving a partly complete mess. It will take a day or so before this is finished. --DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two general references need proper formatting, or alternatively move them to external links section

—Chris! ct 03:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever minor issues there are aren't enough to delist this list. Fantastic job by DavidCane and others in their improvements. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 7 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_London_Underground_stations/archive2&oldid=1143874339"