Talk:Northwest Seaport Alliance/GA1
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: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Lead/Infobox
- "The combined port authority is the fourth largest cargo port in the United States and by container volume." I don't see where this is cited in the article.
- Added a mention in the formation sub-section, while also correcting the rank.
- The region parameter of the infobox is "Puget Sound region". Is the word "region" needed?
- The Puget Sound refers to the body of water, so I think having the region appended is important. It's similar to saying San Francisco Bay vs. San Francisco Bay Area.
- Makes sense. Thanks.
- The Puget Sound refers to the body of water, so I think having the region appended is important. It's similar to saying San Francisco Bay vs. San Francisco Bay Area.
- "The combined port authority is the fourth largest cargo port in the United States and by container volume." I don't see where this is cited in the article.
- History
- "During the Great Recession of the late 2000s, Seattle regained its title as the larger of the ports..." Did it regain because of the Great Recession? Was the title swap due solely to the Masersk merger? Did it lure shipping lines other than Masersk away from Tacoma, or were the shipping lines at Seattle just not hit as hard? If details are available, they should be included. If not, that's ok.
- The Masersk merger and move to Seattle helped push Seattle past Tacoma. I've removed the recession reference since I can't find a direct connection in any of my sources.
- "The consolidation of shipping lines in the 1990s, favoring centralized distribution centers in fewer ports, and merging of the state's railroad system..." I can't tell if these are three factors, or if the first two go together. Either way, consolidation needs to be changed to consolidating to match tense. If the two go together, the comma after 1990s should be removed and the part reworded like "the 1990s led to a growing preference for centralized". If they are separate, the word of should be inserted after favoring.
- "influenced the two ports to discuss collaboration or a potential merger." Year? The first factors is from "the 1990s", but next sentence is set in 2012.
Re-ordered the sentence to make things a bit clearer, hopefully. SounderBruce 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- "the Port of Seattle quoted its average cargo rate to be $130,000 per acre, a loss of $35 million in comparison" It's not clear how Seattle's value is a loss compared to a different region, and the source cited doesn't use the word. I think this sentence could be replaced with different information from the same source, specifically that "Port staff have previously estimated that annual revenue from oceangoing cargo, amounting to $130,000 per acre for 500 acres, is reduced by roughly $70,000 per acre, or $35 million, because of rate competition with Tacoma."
- Re-worked that sentence and hopefully cleared up any confusion.
- TEU should link to Twenty-foot equivalent unit at the first mention. Currently, it's not linked until the Cargo section.
- Done.
- "During the Great Recession of the late 2000s, Seattle regained its title as the larger of the ports..." Did it regain because of the Great Recession? Was the title swap due solely to the Masersk merger? Did it lure shipping lines other than Masersk away from Tacoma, or were the shipping lines at Seattle just not hit as hard? If details are available, they should be included. If not, that's ok.
- Governance
- "The alliance is a separate legal entity" Legal entity is already linked in the History section. No need to link a second time.
- Removed.
- Economy
- No concerns
- Cargo
- No concerns
- Connections
- No concerns
- Facilities
- No concerns
- Lead/Infobox
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- I was unable to find a MOS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ports, but the section here is inline with GA-rated articles with similar subjects, such as Port of Albany–Rensselaer
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- no concerns
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- no concerns
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Strongest match on earwig is 11.5%, caused by common phrases ("state and local taxes", "The ports of Seattle and Tacoma"). No concerns
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- I'm not overly familiar with the subject, but nothing is obviously omitted in comparison to other similar GA subjects.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- No concern
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- no concern
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- very stable in recent weeks. No sign of edit warring or vandalism.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- rationales provided
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Images are relevant. Captions for two images in the body are good to go. Lack of caption for the infobox is fine, but it needs some WP:ALTTEXT indicating what it is.
- Alt text has been added.
- Images are relevant. Captions for two images in the body are good to go. Lack of caption for the infobox is fine, but it needs some WP:ALTTEXT indicating what it is.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass pending resolution of notes given above Argento Surfer (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- @Argento Surfer: Thanks for the review. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. SounderBruce 19:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Everything looks good. Thanks for the quick responses! Argento Surfer (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
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.