Talk:2 Line (Sound Transit)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, SounderBruce, I'll be reviewing this. It will take me some time to get through it given the length, but here are some starting comments for the lead.

Thanks for taking this on. I don't mind if the review takes a while, since there's a lot to unpack here. I've addressed the four points you raised about the lead. SounderBruce 01:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• "The East Link Extension is a future light rail line that will become part of Sound Transit's Link light rail system in the Seattle metropolitan area of the U.S. state of Washington." - Light rail shouldn't be repeated with such proximity
• "The line will use part of the Interstate 90 floating bridge" - I have no idea what a floating bridge is, so either clarify that or link to the appropriate article here You should link floating bridge at its first mention, not its second
• "A rail system serving the Eastside has been proposed since the 1960s, but did not gain traction until the establishment of Sound Transit in the early 1990s" - I know of course what you mean here, but the rail system itself cannot "gain traction" (or lack thereof); the proposal "did not gain traction"
• " During the planning process, the alignment in South Bellevue was debated by the city council" - unclear to me what "the alignment in South Bellevue" refers to
• Infobox and lead image seem suitable. ceranthor 16:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

General

• Went through and made a few copyedits, but the prose looks excellent. Feel free to change any of them if I changed the meaning or you dislike my tweak.
• Would you consider breaking up the history section into a few sections based on time, similar to the style of articles for artists like Lady Gaga?
  • @Ceranthor: The subsections are already in a vaguely chronological order (with some overlaps based on segment) and I don't think there needs to further subsectioning for most of the History section. I am looking at dividing up the Route refinement section, since it's rather long but needs to be kept together to maintain flow. SounderBruce 23:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. There's no reason to delay this article's promotion any longer, though, IMO. Passing. ceranthor 00:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• Look solid.

@SounderBruce: I should be able to post comments tomorrow. Sorry for the delay! ceranthor 01:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Posted a few comments. Consider the second comment and let me know what you think - and then this should be good to pass. ceranthor 14:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)