Jump to content

Talk:NS 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.


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

Reviewer: Kew Gardens 613 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 24 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

  • The North South Line (NS Line) is a streetcar service of the Portland Streetcar system in Portland, Oregon, United States. Operated by Portland Streetcar, Inc. If you could space out the use of the word streetcar, like you did for light rail in your other nominations, that would be great.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line has since been extended to 4.1 miles (6.6 km), adding service to RiverPlace and the South Waterfront. Saying it extended to 4.1 miles reads weirdly. I would write "The line has since been extended to RiverPlace and the South Waterfront, increasing its length to 4.1 miles (6.6 km)--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early planning

Funding and construction

Opening and later extensions

Route

Stations

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.

Early planning

Opening and later extensions

Route

Ridership

Former Vintage Trolley 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). No issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.

Opening and later extensions

Route

Former Vintage Trolley service

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

Early planning

Funding and construction

Opening and later extensions

Stations

Service

Former Vintage Trolley service

  • Why did this service operate in this first place? Could some background, and perhaps a see also for the Portland Vintage Trolley be provided?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did this supplement or replace regular streetcar service?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were operated on regular trips, in place of modern Škoda cars, and a modern streetcar would operate the same schedule whenever a faux-vintage car was not available. I have added a phrase, but the already-cited 2001 source for that paragraph supports the addition (in the paragraph next to the Vintage Trolley photo, "duty" being British for what Americans usually call a run [in an urban transit context] – a set of trips operated by a single transit vehicle on a given day). SJ Morg (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were non-wheelchair accessible To me at least, I am surprised that there were no lawsuits preventing their operation. The tracks were installed after the passage of the 1990 ADA law.
  • The late-2005 suspension eventually became permanent When did it become permanent? That year, two years...?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Not a direct issue, but I would move the 1912 image up a bit.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.

Comments

[edit]

@Kew Gardens 613: If you don't mind, I'm gonna put this on hold until I finish reviewing the Uptown Hudson Tubes article. @Epicgenius: Thank you so much for your patience! --Truflip99 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I believe I have addressed all pending items (except the map will take a couple of weeks). Please let me know if there is anything else. Thank you again for doing this review! --Truflip99 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your work. I have made a few suggestions that aren't necessary for GA, including additions for other articles, and the map. Concerning Hectares, I pinged @SounderBruce: who made the suggestion in the MAX Red Line review. That wouldn't be disqualifying. Great job! It has now passed. I look forward to reviewing other articles of yours.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 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.