Talk:Lynnwood Transit Center/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 21 February 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:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Taking a closer look at any possible MOS issues. Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 24 February 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:
@SounderBruce: References #1, #3, & #8 are all either dead or close to it. They will need to be adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References 1 and 3 were fixed (the site was redesigned without redirects after the GAN was submitted); reference 8 isn't dead or likely to die soon, might you have not seen the blurb for the article near the bottom? Sounder Bruce 00:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look. Shearonink (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what was wrong before...sometimes the websites are down for a bit and when the tool is run it just catches that. All is well, carry on. Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool - looks good to go. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 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:
Very straightforward. Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Stable, no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 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:
All the permissions are good. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Very relevant. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article that stuck to the facts, well-sourced - nicely-done. Going forward, keeping this article updated with future changes especially the light-rail line coming in - that would be useful. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]