Talk:First Hill Streetcar/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: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 23:15, 26 February 2019 (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:
I have made several copy edits to the article, mostly for sentence structure. Please review and revise anything I screwed up.
Thanks for the copyedits. I did go back and change a few of your tweaks just to match what I remember from the sources.

The lead is a little short, but passable. Nothing vital is missing.

"an onboard electric battery" - I'm almost certain electric is redundant, but the possibility of a technical distinction means I've leaving it for you to decide.
I've decided to remove it.

According to local improvement district, the term is specific to Canada. I'll let you decide if it should stay linked.
I will change the redirect to a description of the American version, which is in use by several states.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
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:
no concern

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:
There's a citation request at the end of the Stations subsection that needs to be addressed in some manner.
I've hidden the sentence until I can find a suitable source. It's well documented in physical form, but that's not citeable.

The claim that Metro refers to the line as Route 96 is not supported by the citation given.
I will have to look for a source that has that claim, but I thought I had added it before.
Since it's just a minor claim, I've hidden it for now.

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
ear wig raises no concern.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
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:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Argento Surfer: Thanks for picking this article up for review. I've answered your concerns above, with the exception of the missing citations. Sounder Bruce 07:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With the two uncited claims hidden, I'm comfortable passing this. Nice work, as usual! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2019 (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.