Talk:Columbia City station/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing a Review of this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lays everything out within an easy-to-understand timeline. Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Everything in this article is very straightforward. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Well-Researched. Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
None that I could find. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
All looks good from the copyvio tool. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
The article is very stable. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The only image is fine. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article looks good so far, will be doing some more readthroughs to catch any possible issues that I might have missed. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Congrats, it's a GA. I wanted to say that I especially enjoy how you tied in community reactions to transport in the area over the years and to the building of this station - some human interest helps to leaven all the construction/transport details. Going forward any possible improvements would be keeping the article updated with any changes to the nearby developments. Oh, I also think Wikilinking Olmsted's name would be a good idea since not everyone knows who Frederick Law Olmsted was. Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked articles

@SounderBruce: Even though this isn't strictly a GA Criteria, I think the amount of redlinks in the article at present is a little much and they should be pruned down a bit (also, "Martin Luther King Jr. Way" is Wikilinked twice - at least one of the Wikilinks should go). Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I've decided to scrap all the redlinks for now. I plan to create articles for those redlinks and re-add them at a later date (e.g. Draft:Martin Luther King Jr. Way (Seattle)). Sounder Bruce 02:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thanks, I kind of figured that they were on your article-schedule, considering your interest in Seattle Washington Transport articles. Shearonink (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.