Jump to content

Talk:MAX Blue Line/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Kew Gardens 613 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Lead

  • Like in the review for MAX Red Line, I would space out light rail in the lead to The MAX Yellow Line is a light rail line in Portland, Oregon, United States, operated by TriMet as part of the MAX Light Rail system.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early freeway proposals

Transitway planning and construction

Early planning and delays

Funding and construction

Route

  • The Blue Line shares much of its alignment with the Red Line, originally from 11th Avenue loop tracks in downtown Portland then Beaverton Transit Center since 2001 and 2003, respectively, to Gateway Transit Center, where Red Line trains diverge towards Portland International Airport. Change this to "The Blue Line shares much of its alignment with the Red Line, using the same tracks from Beaverton Transit Center to Gateway Transit Center, where Red Line trains diverge toward Portland International Airport. Between 2001 and 2003 they had also shared routes between the 11th Avenue loop tracks in Downtown Portland and Beaverton Transit Center.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service

Ridership

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. * Concerning Selinger, I would use rp for page numbers to be consistent with the other references. Also, add the OCLC number for it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early freeway proposals

Transitway planning and construction

Early planning and delays

Funding and Construction

Route

Stations

Service

2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Good.
2c. it contains no original research. Good.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Transitway planning and construction

Inauguration and later improvements

Early planning and delays

Funding and construction

Opening

  • In September 2000, TriMet adopted a color coding scheme; before the Red Line's opening in 2001. Could exact dates be provided? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still can't view the 2000 article, so maybe @SJ Morg: could assist? Otherwise, I just put the date the article was published. Done for the other one. --Truflip99 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 9/21/2000 article does not say exactly when it was adopted, just implies that it was recent, and gives the clear impression that the change was adopted by the agency staff without need for approval by the board. I have changed the text back to just "September 2000" for accuracy. SJ Morg (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding implementation, the first public schedules to show the new colors were those dated August 26, 2001, but (from my own observations as a rider) it took at least three months to implement the change, between June and September 2001, because it takes a lot of time to update signage at what was then about 50 stations (on the Gresham–Hillsboro line; the airport branch's stations needed no updating) and to replace the rollsign-type destination signs in what was then almost 80 light rail cars (with new rolls showing blue or red background color, instead of black), with each car having four signboxes. So, it was far from an overnight implementation, but the goal was to complete it before the opening of the airport line, and from everything I saw, that goal was met. For the sake of discussion, I'd say that August 26, 2001, is the only precise 'implementation date' that could be considered accurate, but I cannot find a citation for that, so the less precise wording in the article is likely the best that can done on this point. SJ Morg (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stations and Ridership

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Good.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Other than the addition of copyrighted information, which was removed, no issues
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. no issue
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. no issue
7. Overall assessment.

Hello Truflip99 (talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

@Truflip99: Great work on this article. I look forward to passing it! Concerning sources, for some reason, it shows up as pending. To see what I added, look in edit source. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC) @Truflip99: All that is left are the issues in section 3A. Thanks for your quick fixes.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: Should be good to go! Please let me know if there is anything I missed. --Truflip99 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: Thanks for the great work you have done on the article and in the GAR process. The article is good!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 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.