Jump to content

Talk:MAX Orange 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: Gerald Waldo Luis (talk · contribs) 04:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this article. Note that my timezone is UTC+7. GeraldWL 04:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
 Done I've removed it.
 Question: Cannot the image simply be reduced to satisfy the issue? I would do so myself, but I have no idea how much reduction is considered necessary. I feel this image is a helpful and appropriate inclusion. – SJ Morg (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SJ Morg, for now it's best to remove that image first. If the deletion nomination has been addressed and it's kept, it can be restored. GeraldWL 11:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is forced to be done since GAs must not have copyright violations, in which the file is tagged for as of now. GeraldWL 11:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My question was directed at Truflip99, not the GAN reviewer. Removal of the questioned image is an easy solution, but is not the best solution, in my view. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
 Done WOW, thanks for catching that. *facepalm* --truflip99 (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...just outside of Milwaukie proper in unincorporated Clackamas County." what does "proper" and "unincorporated" mean? Unfamiliar with the geography of the US, thus I'm unfamiliar with these terms. GeraldWL 07:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've added the appropriate wikilinks. Should suffice for GA.
It is not entirely car-free. This is explained in the body.
"Portland Transit Mall" is the proper name, while "transit mall" is a common noun (i.e. Portland, the city... Portland Transit Mall, the transit mall)
I think since it's already in the lead, it's not necessary. Idk I've just been following the style of older FA articles (like Line 1 (Sound Transit))
  • Daily ridership parameter in infobox has it "as of", but lead says "in September 2019." In means that it carried 11,000 during that month, while as of means that it carried 11,000 from its opening up to 2019. GeraldWL 07:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the template's usage: "The template ... is used to mark potentially dated statements, and will add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. This allows editors to catalogue statements that may become dated over time."
 Done

Thank you very much for picking this up! --truflip99 (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truflip99, you're welcome! That train looks awesome. Not the red one, of course. GeraldWL 08:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reverse here, from Services to History, from short to long.

Service

[edit]
Yes. TriMet likes to be unique in this way I think.
This is not remotely unusual in the United States. Many (maybe even a majority of) urban transit systems give both numbers and names to routes. I realize this is very unusual in Europe (according to my British friends), but it is very common in the United States (and Canada). – SJ Morg (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use "service" instead of "line" because American light rail systems are unique in that lines frequently overlap and it just helps with differentiating that fact. Not a fan of them doing this either.
Indeed. The issue is, ridership predictions are used to ask for money from citizens and the US government to build these lines, and since TriMet couldn't meet its predictions after building the line, people were upset.
I've heard many things about US public transport. Especially New York-- GeraldWL 06:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route

[edit]
Nah, omitted.
It's a rail term: Through train
Truflip99, but it reads: "trains through". Shouldn't it be "through trains"? GeraldWL 06:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: A "though train" (noun) "through operates" (phrasal verb) into another line. --truflip99 (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where at?
Truflip99, Stations para 1. GeraldWL 01:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Found it! Thank you --truflip99 (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multi images: trivial, but I recommend replacing the Southeast Bybee Boulevard image with South Waterfront/Southwest Moody's, as it is the median of the station list. This is trivial, though. GeraldWL 08:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but there aren't any good pics of that station...
Just following the style of other GA/FA articles
Hmm... but if you could make this more refreshed, why not? :) GeraldWL 06:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Fair point.  Done --truflip99 (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: White/no color means both directions, as in normal service. --truflip99 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truflip99, that would have to be noted. Otherwise people (like me) will think that unmarked stuff are northbounds. GeraldWL 06:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Given the topic, I really don't think it's necessary. It's fair assumption for any station in any part of the world to be served by trains running bi-directionally unless otherwise noted. Plus if that were the case, I would have added a "↑" icon next to those stations and a "Northbound only" key to indicate that. Please note that MAX Yellow Line and MAX Red Line both achieved FA without this being necessary. --truflip99 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truflip99, got it. I think I misread the article initially, assuming that it's southbound platform and not station.
Last thing I would suggest, is merging the yellow and green circles. After that I'll do a last checkup. GeraldWL 07:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I've already tried that in the two years I've been tweaking these tables, and trust me when I say it just doesn't look as good. :) Plus there is no wiki MOS to say what this should look like. truflip99 (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truflip99, roger that. Will do a last check; should be done soon as I read articles too fast in the last minute. GeraldWL 08:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early proposals to Clackamas County

[edit]
Common usage omits the "the" in this case
The omission of "the" is fairly common when an initialism can be pronounced as a word, which applies here. The abbreviated name of this entity is commonly spoken as "crag" (but written CRAG, of course). – SJ Morg (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
I used to not have it, but previous reviewers have insisted on its use to avoid confusion. I moved it to precede "Metro" though.

Failed South/North Line

[edit]
 Done
May not be necessary as other GA/FA articles don't do this? Not quite sure about this one tbh, just following other styles.

Revival and funding

[edit]
 Done

Construction and opening

[edit]
  • "By that July, the project had reached 50-percent completion." Suggest changing to 'By that July, the project had been completed by 50%." I'm personally not a fan of alphebatizing percents, but if that's preferred you may keep that part. GeraldWL 13:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I agree with you here. I've switched back and forth between spelling it out and not, just right now all of my articles spell it out. Do you know if there is a definitive wiki style for this? --truflip99 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis To add, I think I'll have to remove the majority of your archived links as they are already archived in the Newsbank database, and it would effectively be an archive of an archive. --truflip99 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truflip99, that would be fine. However if the URL has a rot potential, it's best to not remove it. GeraldWL 06:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final check

[edit]

Truflip99, this article is all good for GA. Just some more points:

  • Explanatory note c has an inappropriate boldface. Mind italicizing and unbolding, or just completely unbold?
 Done
  • Some sources need archive. They are ref: 32, 70, 83, 92, 93, and 99.
I will go ahead and do these once Wayback Machine stops lagging. Please note that archiving is not a pre-requisite to GA status. With that said, I always have archiving as part of my to-do list for articles that I eventually wish to push through to FA review. --truflip99 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeraldWL 11:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps SJ Morg can help with the archiving. I am only able to archive one source manually: Toolforge doesn't archive the 6 sources above, and the Wayback Machine lags my laptop when I process it. GeraldWL 11:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Are you still waiting on a pending item? Did I miss anything? --truflip99 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truflip99, 'pologies the wait! I'm currently on mobile, so it's gonna be hard to GA it. Need to move to the desktop first, so be patient. By afternoon UTC+7 I'll push this up. Anyway, since you have the MAX article and the line articles all G or FA, dp you plan to make them a featured topic? Just wondering. GeraldWL 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truflip99, I have erected the GA circle for this article. Congrats! GeraldWL 14:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis Thanks again for the thorough review of this article. I'm quite impressed with the things you've caught having actively edited on WP for just the past year. Good luck on your projects here, and should you want any assistance please don't hesitate to leave me a message. And yes, I do plan to pursue Good/Featured Topic in the future, when I'm less lazy :D --truflip99 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MAX_Orange_Line/GA1&oldid=1009935579"