The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 11:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
I am nominating this article as its coverage has been greatly broadened, beyond the suggestions mentioned in its GAN. Some things are left non uniform becuase I am not sure which format to use, such as with references and proper nomenclature. I would like to note that if meeting FAC means tearing the article apart, I would rather dismiss this and leave it mainly as it is. I objectively wrote it using plentiful references, but also omitted some small tidbits as a local who is familiar with what's actually going on on the ground. For example, the county and Wikipedia suggest that the Metromover has variable headways depending on time of day. I can tell you with certainty this is not true. It is already a hassle enough for the operators to clear the system at night. Even at that time, they do not put them away in the maintenance facility, and there is no side track. They are simply parked, usually at the ends of the outer loops. There are several print sources that could be added to further reading section, which I went only as far as to initiate, as I know this makes an article look better. I did not plan to go for broke as I have been doing the past few days on this article, and quite frankly for some time between mid 2012 and mid 2014 I was embarrassed for even having created it. It was circular logic wherein I just kept going farther because I had gone so far, a recent cold that left me indoors also compelled me to delve back into the project. Frankly, it's incredibly easy to write a decent and broad article, it's just time consuming with the syntax. Sans references I could have written the whole thing in an hour or so, and it still would have been just as true. I can easily address any remaining deficiencies or format issues remaining in the article. B137 ( talk) 02:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments—I reviewed, and failed this, for GAN three years ago. Some items from that review have been corrected, but the recent work does not bring this up to FA standards. Looking at just the references, in no particular order as things jumped out while skimming them:
|work=
, |newspaper=
, |website=
(which isn't the URL of the website, rather the name) or |journal=
, etc.|publisher=
.|agency=
.|location=
. The Miami Herald includes the city, so listing it again is redundant, but the SunSentinel (or is it Sun-Sentinel) does not, so it should be included. This rule also applies to television stations, which should have their cities listed as well.|via=
. However as another practical matter, I'm skeptical that the uploader of that video has the appropriate permissions. We are not allowed to link to copyright violations, and if so that link should be removed at a minimum.|format=PDF
where appropriate. Not all readers can see the PDF icons in all cases, and those icons may actually disappear at some point. (They've already been removed from other language editions of Wikipedia along with icons for Word, Excel, or MP3 files; they're retained here for PDFs as a local change to the server software that could be removed at any time.)That handles the biggest things that stand out in a quick skim of the numbered footnotes. However, you have a curious second footnotes section with a single shortened footnote that references a single full citation. Do your readers a favor and:
<ref>...</ref>
.<ref>...</ref>
tags. There is no use in shortening the only footnote to that source.On that note, I will come back another day to evaluate the prose. If things are as jumbled there as I'm seeing in the citations in terms of formatting consistency, I hold very little hope for this article passing FAC in the normal time period. At this time, I'm leaning toward formally opposing promotion for this article. Imzadi 1979 → 09:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply
|via=Google Books
.|work=
|newspaper=
and |journal=
are aliases for each other; it doesn't matter which parameter name you use because they are functionally the same. In fact, if you set up more than one of them, I believe the value for |work=
will override the others. Use |work=South Florida Business Journal
or |journal=South Florida Business Journal
and it won't matter, the name of the published work will still appear in italics in the proper location. (It also doesn't matter if you're reading it in print or online, it's the name of a print publication and its sister online website.)|deadurl=no
to point readers to the archived copy.|publisher=
instead of |location=
, and publishers are appearing in italics where they weren't before or have been incorrectly shifted into |via=
, as just a few examples.) I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination, take this to
WP:PR and engage with other editors willing to assist in the detailed copy editing and polishing necessary to consider a FA nomination in the future.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
Closing comment -- Well, I think the review has indeed stagnated after those few more days so I'll be archiving it shortly. Beyond Imzadi's comments, I notice that there are still several uncited statements/paragraphs. I agree that Peer Review is the next logical step after addressing these issues. This is a very ambitious article, and I wish you the best luck with it. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 11:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
I am nominating this article as its coverage has been greatly broadened, beyond the suggestions mentioned in its GAN. Some things are left non uniform becuase I am not sure which format to use, such as with references and proper nomenclature. I would like to note that if meeting FAC means tearing the article apart, I would rather dismiss this and leave it mainly as it is. I objectively wrote it using plentiful references, but also omitted some small tidbits as a local who is familiar with what's actually going on on the ground. For example, the county and Wikipedia suggest that the Metromover has variable headways depending on time of day. I can tell you with certainty this is not true. It is already a hassle enough for the operators to clear the system at night. Even at that time, they do not put them away in the maintenance facility, and there is no side track. They are simply parked, usually at the ends of the outer loops. There are several print sources that could be added to further reading section, which I went only as far as to initiate, as I know this makes an article look better. I did not plan to go for broke as I have been doing the past few days on this article, and quite frankly for some time between mid 2012 and mid 2014 I was embarrassed for even having created it. It was circular logic wherein I just kept going farther because I had gone so far, a recent cold that left me indoors also compelled me to delve back into the project. Frankly, it's incredibly easy to write a decent and broad article, it's just time consuming with the syntax. Sans references I could have written the whole thing in an hour or so, and it still would have been just as true. I can easily address any remaining deficiencies or format issues remaining in the article. B137 ( talk) 02:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments—I reviewed, and failed this, for GAN three years ago. Some items from that review have been corrected, but the recent work does not bring this up to FA standards. Looking at just the references, in no particular order as things jumped out while skimming them:
|work=
, |newspaper=
, |website=
(which isn't the URL of the website, rather the name) or |journal=
, etc.|publisher=
.|agency=
.|location=
. The Miami Herald includes the city, so listing it again is redundant, but the SunSentinel (or is it Sun-Sentinel) does not, so it should be included. This rule also applies to television stations, which should have their cities listed as well.|via=
. However as another practical matter, I'm skeptical that the uploader of that video has the appropriate permissions. We are not allowed to link to copyright violations, and if so that link should be removed at a minimum.|format=PDF
where appropriate. Not all readers can see the PDF icons in all cases, and those icons may actually disappear at some point. (They've already been removed from other language editions of Wikipedia along with icons for Word, Excel, or MP3 files; they're retained here for PDFs as a local change to the server software that could be removed at any time.)That handles the biggest things that stand out in a quick skim of the numbered footnotes. However, you have a curious second footnotes section with a single shortened footnote that references a single full citation. Do your readers a favor and:
<ref>...</ref>
.<ref>...</ref>
tags. There is no use in shortening the only footnote to that source.On that note, I will come back another day to evaluate the prose. If things are as jumbled there as I'm seeing in the citations in terms of formatting consistency, I hold very little hope for this article passing FAC in the normal time period. At this time, I'm leaning toward formally opposing promotion for this article. Imzadi 1979 → 09:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply
|via=Google Books
.|work=
|newspaper=
and |journal=
are aliases for each other; it doesn't matter which parameter name you use because they are functionally the same. In fact, if you set up more than one of them, I believe the value for |work=
will override the others. Use |work=South Florida Business Journal
or |journal=South Florida Business Journal
and it won't matter, the name of the published work will still appear in italics in the proper location. (It also doesn't matter if you're reading it in print or online, it's the name of a print publication and its sister online website.)|deadurl=no
to point readers to the archived copy.|publisher=
instead of |location=
, and publishers are appearing in italics where they weren't before or have been incorrectly shifted into |via=
, as just a few examples.) I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination, take this to
WP:PR and engage with other editors willing to assist in the detailed copy editing and polishing necessary to consider a FA nomination in the future.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
reply
Closing comment -- Well, I think the review has indeed stagnated after those few more days so I'll be archiving it shortly. Beyond Imzadi's comments, I notice that there are still several uncited statements/paragraphs. I agree that Peer Review is the next logical step after addressing these issues. This is a very ambitious article, and I wish you the best luck with it. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply