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 by GrahamColm 10:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

7 Subway Extension[edit]

7 Subway Extension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/7 Subway Extension/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I am sure that although this is currently listed a good article, the article deserves a better nomination. I feel that it is at FA standards, as it is comprehensive and well cited. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal.

• The article lacks background information in the body. The lead mentions that it was originally proposed to support NY's 2012 Olympics bid, and to serve as a stadium for the New York Jets. If it was indeed proposed to support NY's Olympics bid, and that the host city of an Olympic event is announced seven years before hand, shouldn't there be sources about the extension dating back to at least 2005? Yet these facts are not elaborated upon in the article, and instead it starts off by talking about the awarding of the project in October 2007.
• Why is a quarter of the lead a quote from the "2013 Construction Project of the Year" award?
• The article is not structured properly -- why is the mention of Bloomberg's December 12, 2006, speech placed in the fourth paragraph, instead of at the start?
• Source review

• FN 6: Wouldn't AOL be Huffington Post's publisher? And why did you decide to use a publisher for this FN and not, for example, FN 4?
• Compare the number of newspaper in FN 7 and FN 29. Make sure all the references follow a consistent layout.
• FN 13 and 31 are dead.
• FN 43 to 47 are missing retrieval dates.
• "New York City Economic Development Commission" is the author in FN 38 yet in FN 31 it is the publisher.
• FN 51 does not follow a consistent layout as compared to the rest of the article.

• According to the Highlight duplicate links tool, "Michael Bloomberg", "Chris Christie" and "MTA" have duplicate links.
• Isn't it premature to nominate the article for FA status since the article I presume will encounter stability issues in June 2014, when the extension work is scheduled to be completed?

I do not think the article is sufficiently prepared for FA status. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, and strongly urge withdrawal. I don't want to sound unduly critical, but this does not even approach readiness for FAC (or, in my personal opinion, for GA). The lead is not a summary of the article, includes material not addressed in the body, and does not follow WP:MOSLEAD. The article does not include full coverage of the topic. Absence of the Olympic information in the body notwithstanding, where are discussions of the proposal period, the reasons for construction, reactions to the construction and the new line, reactions to the cancellation of proposed extensions, economic impact? Actually, the lack of retrospective information is understandable as this project is apparently still underway; for the same reasons as the recent iPhone FAC, I'd thus also fail on stability grounds. Nor is the referencing adequate for FAC. Reference formatting is deeply inconsistent, but that aside, substantial amounts of the article are referenced to primary sources, and some other sources are not reliable (Second Avenue Stories is a WordPress blog, in particular). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the others. It's not the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia, but it is not ready for a run at FA yet. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – No way is this article ready for FAC sorry. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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