Talk:MAX Yellow Line/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: Kew Gardens 613 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 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. Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Early proposals Add "the" before Portland City Council in the second paragraph--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Metro approved the project the following month. I did not know that a regional government existed. A reader could think that this is referring to a transit agency. You should make clear what Metro is.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Revival and construction Add "the" before Portland City Council in the first paragraph--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] The article states Meanwhile, the Airport MAX and Central City streetcar were locally funded projects amounting to $175 million that did not require substantial federal assistance. They were declared part of the Interstate MAX project, which granted eligibility for $257.5 million in matching federal funds. You cannot assume that the reader knows what the Airport MAX and Central City streetcar are. You should establish a bit about them before this sentence.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Planned extension to Clark County, Washington Studies of a third bridge spanning the Columbia River, which had been abandoned in the late 1980 It isn't clear that you are saying whether they were studying a new bridge with light rail, or using a bridge that had been abandoned. I presume the latter, but you should make this clear.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. I meant to say the studies were abandoned, but saying that now doesn't make sense. Hopefully I have clarified it. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] This wording is awkward, Studies of a third bridge spanning the Columbia River, which had been abandoned in the late 1980s, that included a light rail component, in addition to a light rail-only bridge and an underground tunnel were conducted. It takes a while for the reader to understand that the sentence was mentioning that studies were conducted. I would change it to "Studies were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of adding light rail onto a third bridge spanning the Columbia River, which had been abandoned in the late 1980s, in addition to a light rail-only bridge and an underground tunnel."--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Service I don't see any reason to capitalize "Frequent Service." If you need to you can right that TriMet designates it as a frequent service, with service running on a headway of...--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. This is actually TriMet branding, which I had intended to start a section in the TriMet article for, but haven't found the time. Chose your latter recommendation. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good to go on this point.
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.	Infobox For source 1, add the date, which is October 17, 2018.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Early proposals For source 9, add the OCLC number.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Service Sources are as of this revision. Source 76. The schedule information is not on this direct link. Could you cite the printable schedule pdfs?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. I've bundled them. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Planned extension to Clark County, Washington For source 47 could you include the page number and use the link to the actual text? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Also, add the OCLC number.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done and done! --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	Great newspaper references!
	2c. it contains no original research.	Route Source 66 does not state that there is a grade crossing on North Argyle Street. I've added a Google Maps ref per Template:Google maps. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Looks good. I have to take your word that you did not plagiarize from the newspapers that are not online. I trust you.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Early proposals The Yellow Line was originally conceived in 1988 as part of the Central City and Albina Community plans. Were these plans made by the City of Portland or these local jurisdictions?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Clarified. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Officially named South–North Line, Portland voters approved a $475 million bond issue in November to cover Oregon's portion of the project's estimated $2.8 billion cost. Meanwhile, a 0.3 percent increase in sales and vehicle excise taxes was proposed to provide Washington's $237.5 million share, which Clark County voters turned down in February 1995. You might not know this, but what happened to the finding from the Portland bond issue?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] "Bond issue" just means "a question [placed] before the voters as a ballot measure, asking them to approve or deny additional proposed spending" -- https://ballotpedia.org/Bond_issue. In this case, it was passed. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] I know what a bond issue is. I meant funding, not finding. What happened to the money given that it could no longer go to the project because Washington did not chip in its share?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] I'm very sorry! I totally misunderstood what you were saying. In this case, the money was still available and TriMet had intended to use it for the second, scaled-back revision (which failed in 1996). During the third revision, TriMet put it back on the ballot because it had the words "Clark County" in it, which failed to pass in 1998. I do try to cover this in the same paragraph, but do you think it needs to be rewritten? --Truflip99 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] No, it is good.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Concerning the November 1996 vote, it would be useful to the reader to provide the margin. Was it decisive or close?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Added. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] It proposed the construction of a 15-mile (24 km) line from Clackamas Town Center to Lombard Street in North Portland. Portland City Council selected a longer alignment in June. What were the other alternatives and why was this one chosen?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] I've checked numerous articles, and none of them really go deep into this. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Opening and realignment It would be useful to provide some background history on the Portland Transit Mall. Unlike the detailed description of the planning for the rest of the line, there is not much here.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] The Portland Transit Mall history is a beast of a topic that may transcend the nominal topic of this article since it was never built as part of the Yellow Line (It was built for the Green Line in 2009). I included the See also in this section because the Yellow Line is just the result of the South–North Line's complicated history; the See also [will be] more concise in the future (I haven't gotten to it yet). Would that be okay? --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Even if was built for the Green Line, it was used for the Yellow Line, and was a major part of its history. Was it not the initial plan to use it for the Yellow Line. I would suggest adding a little background on it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] I would have to say no. Light rail on the Portland Transit Mall is part of the South–North Line history (which ceased in 1998). The Interstate MAX became a separate project that arose after the failure of the South–North Line. I updated the article to give a shoutout to when planning resumed for the transit mall segment (as well as Caruthers Crossing), but I would like to keep these topics separate and elaborated only in their respective line articles. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] From opening day to 2009, the Yellow Line followed First Avenue and Morrison and Yamhill streets upon entry into downtown Portland, terminating at the Library and Galleria stations and turning around at the 11th Avenue tracks. On August 30, 2009, the line was rerouted to use the light rail tracks added to the newly-rebuilt Portland Transit Mall, with the PSU South stations as its southern termini. What made up for the loss of Yellow Line service along First Avenue?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Clarified that it served this segment with the Blue and Red lines. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] I know that it shared that segment with the Blue and Red lines. Was service on these lines increased to compensate for the rerouting of the Yellow Line?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Apologies for the misinterpretation. Nothing made up for it, actually... that was talked about, at least. Changes in service frequencies aren't well covered by TriMet, unfortunately. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Following the completion of the Portland–Milwaukie light rail project, which extended MAX service to Milwaukie, the Yellow Line became partially interlined with the Orange Line due to higher projected ridership along the latter; most Orange Line trains subsequently took over operation of the southbound segment of the transit mall on Southwest 5th Avenue in September 2015. What was the initial plan before ridership was higher on the Orange Line. Has their been any confusion concerning this service pattern? Why do the Orange and Yellow have different designated change over points in the two directions?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] This was a TriMet marketing decision that we unfortunately have no liberty to talk about without providing biased opinions. The only information available is why TriMet did it (to track ridership) and how (through service at the two stations mentioned). There are no credible sources that point to issues with the service pattern. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Could you mention that it was done to track ridership?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done! --Truflip99 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Source 46 answered some of my questions. You should include the information as to why they kept the lines separate to the article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Clarified. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Planned extension to Clark County, Washington It would be useful to explain that light rail was part of the larger highway plan. The way it is phrased The Columbia River Crossing project, which began in 2008, would have extended the Yellow Line north from the Expo Center through Hayden Island and across the Columbia River to downtown Vancouver and Clark College would seem to indicate that the project was mainly a light rail project. Perhaps say "as part of the Columbia River Crossing Project" It would also be useful to explain why the Washington State Senate elected not to fund the project.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] For source 50, it is the Morning Oregonian, not the Oregonian.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Route You should note that it shares the two tracks on the Steel Bridge with the Red, Green and Blue lines.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Ridership This paragraph immediately begs the question, why hasn't ridership met expectations? Do you know anything about this? It's a system-wide thing (nationwide, actually, except a few cities). Added more info. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	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.	This also looks good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	This looks good.
	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) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to be as thorough as I can, so bear with me. Thanks for requesting my help. This is my second review of an article, so if there is anything I could do better, please tell me.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Truflip99 and Epicgenius: Do either of you know why my comment is replaced by pending? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kew Gardens 613: When you make a comment in a template and you put an equals sign, sometimes it breaks. So you have to manually insert the number of the parameter, which in this case is 3 since it is the third parameter. epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Epicgenius: Thanks so much. I knew nothing about that. I should be able to start doing real editing again now that school is done for me.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

These are not needed for the review, but would help it out.

@Truflip99: Concerning Source 61, make sure to save them on the web archive. I saved this one. Older web pages like this are vulnerable to be taken down.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An image of one of the merges with the other lines would be great.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- These will be addressed later today as I need to get back to work! --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I believe I have addressed all of the issues you pointed out. Please let me know if there is any else. I can't thank you enough for the extremely thorough review work you put into this. Thank you!! --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: Thanks for quickly revolving these issues. There are a few more things that need to be addressed. No problem on the thorough review. This is my second one, but I don't know how to do it any other way.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kew Gardens 613: I think you did an amazing job! I thought I was pretty meticulous with this article, but you found issues that I didn't even think about. I'm truly grateful. Hopefully, I've addressed the other issues. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Truflip99: You have addressed the issues. Thanks. I look forward to seeing the changes on Max Blue Line. Stay well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:06, 24 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.