Jump to content

Talk:Metro A Line (Minnesota)

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Metro A Line (Minnesota)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I plan to review this GA over the coming week. I would like to complete this review before midnight (UTC) on October 31st as part of the GAN backlog drive. Thank you for your work so far on this article. MSG17 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MOS

[edit]

The article is quite well written, with engaging prose and good organization. I do have a couple comments:

  • If possible, could you take the refs out of the lead? I feel that ridership info is a great example of something that should be detailed and cited in the body and then summarized in the lead.
  • I would recommend clarifying that the six police officers were assigned only to this line as opposed to, say, all METRO buses.

References

[edit]

Overall, the refs situation seems pretty good at first glance. Inline citations are properly formatted. The references are from a diverse assortment of reliable sources, and most statements are backed up by them, so there are no OR issues here. However, I have noticed some issues:

  • Ref 5 (A Line route map pdf) is currently dead. Can you update the link or find a replacement?
    • I updated the link. I may try to archive this source because from looking at the URL it looks like the url may change slightly every time there is a quarterly change in bus service. 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Travel time only increased by 6 minutes to the U of M and by 2 minutes to downtown Minneapolis. - source used says this is only the planned increase by the planned elimination of 144. Can you see if this increase was actually attained in the real world, or at least on the schedules? If not, it would be fine to indicate that this was only the planned increase.
    • Route 144 timetables are no longer publicly available so I have changed it to planned. I found a news article about the closure of Route 144 but it doesn't currently add any new information to the article. I'm considering adding another Route 144 fact into the A Line article as an excuse to cite this newsarticle because otherwise I'm not sure if these sentences require a 4th citation. On the other hand it is an independent reliable source where two of the three are less independent. Eóin (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening date is unreferenced.
  • Do we really need three sources for one statement from the same urban planner? Especially when one source is essentially his blog.
    • I've removed his blog. I'd like to keep the Vox article because it shows the transit line has been in discussion with a wider audience than just the Twin Cities. I'd be okay with removing the MinnPost article but I'm in the habit of citing as many relevant sources as possible in case it spurs a wider interest in readers. Eóin (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Broadness, focus, neutrality, and writing in general

[edit]

The article is generally comprehensive without going into useless detail, and is quite informative about the route and its features. But, I do have some comments:

  • A lot of the statistical figures are from 2018. Can you look into updating them for 2019 now that most of 2020 has passed?
  • In the same vein, can you get ridership figures for all the stations?
    • In public 2019 ridership stories Metro Transit combined the weekday ridership of the A Line and the C Line. I can cite the annual 2019 A Line ridership but weekday ridership in 2019 hasn't been publicly released. https://www.metrotransit.org/ridership-growing-in-corridors-with-fast-frequent-service. This information may be released in the future and I can keep an eye on that.
    • I will complete the table with the missing entries for the 2019 station ridership. Things are a little complicated with Metro Transit discouraging using aggregate stop-level ridership to calculate route-level ridership. I will try to find a way to clarify that. Eóin (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eóin: Good work on addressing my concerns. I have some more comments:

  • Could you add similar data from Line A to the table in the History section? Without that point of comparison, the data conveyed by the table is unnecessary detail. If there is no set of data for Line A that would make a good comparison, I would recommend removing the table.
  • In a similar vein, I have an issue with the statement Previously buses spent around 24% of their time waiting at signals and had a 90.7% on-time performance. How does that compare to the situation now that Line A has been opened? This might have more meaning to a transit expert, but as a layperson I don't understand the significance of these specific statistics, and I don't think most readers would either.
    • I cannot find current data related to the table in the History section. It appears that level of detail is rarely published and the presence of it was just a snapshot available due to a major transit service study. I have removed the table. I think it has some interesting information but there is insufficient context compared to other years and it is more trivia than encyclopedic.
    • I have found a source for on-time performance after opening but cannot find information about current time spent waiting at traffic signals. In terms of what the significance of the statistics is, I think even transit experts would struggle to put the 24% wait time at signals in context, but to the public it's surprising to hear that a bus spends 1/4 of the time at red lights. I don't think many people could appreciate the difference between 20% spent at traffic signals versus 30%, but many people could appreciate that traffic signals form a significant amount of delay for bus travel. I appreciate the insight and review from non transit fans so I welcome continued discussion on whether this is an acceptable solution or the content should be reviewed/removed for a more general audience. Eóin (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

All good here. Earwig doesn't detect any problems, and neither do I.

Images and stability

[edit]

All images are properly tagged with the proper CC license, and are captioned properly. The pictures are representative of the article's topic. There haven't been any edits since the end of August, so stability is not an issue here.

Overall, you've done a great job and I only see some minor problems so far. MSG17 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because this user has a history of long breaks, I will put this review  On hold for 14 days. MSG17 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your patience. Eóin (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Did You Know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
A Line bus stopped atat a station in Saint Paul, Minnesota
A Line bus stopped atat a station in Saint Paul, Minnesota

Created/expanded by Eóin (talk). Self-nominated at 00:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Love to see Minnesota articles at DYK, especially transit ones! New enough (GA November 5), long enough (15,560 characters), neutral, well-cited throughout, no copyvio or significant close paraphrasing issues noted. Both hooks short enough. ALT0: broadly interesting (we don't get enough bus facts on the MP), cited to and in refs 30 and 31. ALT1: broadly interesting but I think less so than ALT0, cited to and in ref 8. No QPQ needed (second lifetime DYK as far as I can tell). Eóin, there's a lovely bus picture in the infobox...would you like to include it in the nomination? Everything else is good to go! —Collint c 18:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Eóin. When writing a hook that will appear on Wikipedia's main page, you have to be sure you're not advertising or promoting the subject. That was my objection to ALT0 and ALT1. ALT2 could be said about any bus terminal in the world. ALT3 is just another self-promotional hook. Try something factual but also interesting/hooky, like:
  • ALT4: ... that the Metro A Line in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, has speeded up bus service by 6 to 8 minutes by redesigning buses and shortening/lengthening the distance between stations? Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • modified ALT4a: ... that the Metro A Line in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, has sped up bus service by six to eight minutes by redesigning buses (example pictured) and lengthening the distance between stations?
Although it will operate in traffic, it is expected to be faster than the workhorse Route 84 bus, which has up to 80 stops between Rosedale Center and the 46th Street Blue Line light-rail station in Minneapolis. In contrast, the A Line has 20 stations in high-traffic areas, with links not only to the Blue Line, but to the Green Line light rail at University Avenue, as well. The A Line will be six to eight minutes faster than the Route 84 bus, according to Katie Roth, project manager for Metro Transit.
A Line bus at a station in Saint Paul, Minnesota
A Line bus at a station in Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • ALT4a: Cited to and in article (ref 12). Hook is longish (191 characters; I changed "speeded" to "sped" but wrote out the numbers) but not too long. Could the hook be improved somewhat by focusing in a little more exactly on how the speed improvement was accomplished? I think the thing that stands out to me is the huge reduction in the number of stations—80 for the previous route traversing the same distance, but just 20 for the A Line? Maybe something like ALT5: ... that while its predecessor had 80 stops, Minnesota's Metro A Line (bus pictured) has only 20 and completes the same route six to eight minutes faster? How does something like that feel? —Collint c 04:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT5 sounds great! But you have to qualify that it's in high-traffic areas:
  • ALT5a: ... that while its predecessor had 80 stops in high-traffic areas, Minnesota's Metro A Line (bus pictured) has only 20 and completes the same route six to eight minutes faster?Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think what the source is saying is not that both buses had the same number of stops in high-traffic areas but that the A Line consolidates its stops across the same route into the areas on the route that have the highest traffic? The source says "the workhorse Route 84 bus, which has up to 80 stops between Rosedale Center and the 46th Street [station] ... In contrast, the A Line has 20 stations in high-traffic areas..." Whereas the article says "Moreover, in high-traffic areas, the system has only 20 stations..." but we know from elsewhere in the article that the entire route has only 20 stations, implying that the entire route is the high-traffic area. I think the solution is to align the article with the source, maybe something like "Compared with earlier bus routes along the corridor which had up to 80 stops, the A Line has only 20 stations, spaced further apart than their predecessors and located at high-traffic areas along the route, allowing buses travel further between stops." Something like that, but maybe less clunky? —Collint c 17:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Collin about what the source says about the high-traffic areas. I like ALT5 but I'm fine if the high-traffic part needs to be included. -Eóin (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eóin, can you reword the article to reflect the meaning of the source vis-a-vis high-traffic areas? Thanks for your patience as we work through this together! Kindly —Collint c 02:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the text to now say "Previous buses in the corridor stopped at up to 80 stops, while the A Line travels further between stops and has only 20 stations located at high-traffic areas." Is this suitable, Bobamnertiopsis and Yoninah? -Eóin (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5 now reflects text in the source and text cited to the source in the article. Also short enough (154 characters). Image is good to go, all other requirements are fulfilled. —Collint c 23:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Former plagiarism by the Met Council

[edit]

An interesting oddity I found while researching this article is that shortly after creation the article had the sentence below in 2016.

The A Line will connect the METRO Blue & Green lines with the busy Snelling Avenue corridor and several popular destinations, including Hamline University, Macalester College, Highland Village, Rosedale Center, Har Mar Mall, Minnehaha Park and the Midway area.

In 2018 the Met Council published the following sentence on page 64 of their Metropolitan Area Transit Finance Report.

The A Line connects the METRO Blue & Green lines with the Snelling Avenue corridor and several popular destinations, including Hamline University, Macalester College, Highland Village, Rosedale Center, HarMar Mall, Minnehaha Park, and the Midway area.

The sentence no longer exists in our article but I found the Met Council copying language from Wikipedia noteworthy. -Eóin (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Base terms redirected to the likes of x Line (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– I am aware that these pages were moved to their current article names from the names I am proposing that they be moved back to a couple years back, but I personally do not agree with this change. While I understand that this was done for the sake of WP:PRECISION, I believe that this change does not account for other public transport lines that may be referred to colloquially as "Metro X Line." An example of this is in Los Angeles, where public transport lines are also commonly referred to as such by Angelenos, train announcements, and by LA Metro themselves. This also has the added issue of making the naming of the articles for Minnesota Metro inconsistent, with the colored lines having their articles being named "Metro X Line (Minnesota)." I propose moving the articles back to their more descriptive geographical names and converting the more precise names to redirect links. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2023 (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.

Requested move part 2

[edit]

I hope somebody is willing to clean up the mess this move has created. So can somebody solve the links to disambiguation pages in:

  1. Template:Twin Cities Transit
  2. Template:I-35W Bus Rapid Transitway stations
  3. Template:METRO Blue Line
  4. Template:Metro E Line
  5. Template:Minneapolis Metro
  6. Template:Metro D Line
  7. Template:Riverview Corridor
  8. Template:Gateway Corridor
  9. Template:Marq2 Transit Corridor
  10. Template:Metro A Line
  11. Template:Metro C Line
  12. Template:Rush Line

Action will be really appreciated. The Banner talk 01:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The KML files for the E Line and B Line are no longer working as well. The Wikimedia Commons categories should likely be moved too. To whoever moved these pages, please don't leave this move only halfway complete. -Eóin (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro_A_Line_(Minnesota)&oldid=1199567539"