Talk:REM de l'Est

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:REM de l'Est/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WikiFouf (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Well done for GA nominee #1. The main issues are copy changes; the three YouTube video references; and the provenance of the map in the infobox. Ping me when you have answers to/fixes for all of those. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.

Copy changes

• Use {{convert}} templates for units.
• Might it make sense to dissolve the History level-2 header and promote its five level-3 subheaders to level 2 and so on?
• Consider absorbing the one-paragraph Polling level-4 item into another header.
• How is a project "structuring"? I'm assuming this is something from French that is not translating, given the title and terms like structuring public transport network.
• change "wasn't invited in" to "was not invited to participate in"
• 30 minutes, and the latter, 25 minutes Remove both commas
• comprising most of the northern antenna towards "antenna" doesn't work here, probably something from French. I'd try "branch". Also, "toward", not "towards".
• a former largely industrial try "formerly"
• received important criticism and media attention "significant" would be more idiomatic than "important" here
• the agency which runs Montreal's Metro and city buses, concluded : "The Caisse's I fixed this, but the space before the colon, while expected in French, isn't in English.
• Made some changes to fix WP:CINS errors.

Sourcing and spot checks

Three refs are YouTube videos from content creators—22, 51, and 70. These would be considered unreliable. Can you find other sources to replace them?

• 14: Competition with Pink Line and Notre Dame tramway is mentioned. Y
• 20: Change of the northern branch to subterranean/underground construction. Y
• 27: Allegation that the line would create a "scar" (cicatrice). Y
• 42 and 43: Consider a citebundle for these five refs 42-43-44-45-46—you don't need all of them with separate numbers. These are primary sources that verify the ref by their existence. Y
• 53: Op-ed mentions combating urban sprawl. Y
• 62: At the outset, the driving force behind the REM project was CDPQ Infra's business model. A model based on speed of execution, system efficiency and cost control to generate profits. Along the way, it has become clear that the Eastern REM is no longer simply a transportation infrastructure to be blindly deployed across a territory. It must be conceived as a planning and development axis, responding to the needs of the population. (translated) Y
• 71: This is the only mention in 71: At the Chambre de Commerce de l'Est de Montréal (CCEM), CEO Jean-Denis Charest said on Tuesday that the REM "must be analyzed as a project to revitalize a territory that goes far beyond passenger transportation". "It must be seen as the cornerstone that will enable the east end to realize its full potential," he said. I think that more about what CCEM said would help this loner sentence become a paragraph or integrate with another paragraph. Y
• 86: CDPQ Infra report from 2022 shows 23 stations in the plan plus Viauville as a possible station. Y

Images

All the images are CC-licensed in various forms, but I'm unsure about the map. How was it made? Encouragement: Add alt text to images to make them accessible to visually impaired readers.

@Sammi Brie: Thank you!

(Hope this is the right spot to leave my comments, I dunno how this is usually done.)

Thanks a lot for your great notes, I've already changed most of the smaller stuff. I'll change the bigger stuff in the following days when I have some more free time. In the meantime, here are some answers and questions:

• That photo is pretty ugly I know, but I made it myself! On a stupid basic photo editor (I used an actual map of the network for reference). And this might be the biggest problem: I don't remember where I took the OG map that's underneath. I can make a new (and hopefully prettier) one to make sure. But what would be even better: do you happen to know any proficient editors who are into making transit maps? Let me know!
• For the YouTube sources: I actually remember looking through the guidelines when I was writing the article and, while I was never 100% sure, I thought it would be accepted since I'm citing these sources for commentary, not for any facts whatsoever. Both channels are local and transit-focused, and they both have a pretty sizeable YouTube following considering the niche topic (especially Oh The Urbanity!, which seems pretty popular), so I thought their viewpoints were worth citing alongside the newspaper columnists, political figures, etc. Also I saw that one of them, Paige Saunders, is also a freelance contributor for CBC, so could that be another argument for him?
• On the word "structuring": from a quick Google search, it seems like it's a very local term, definitely a literal translation from the French, but it is being used by some [1][2]. I would be prefer a more widely understood term but I don't know any, let me know if you have a suggestion!
• For the source 71: I actually use that one to back the word "some" in the sentence, that source contains criticism from an expert (Pierre Barrieau) that's similar to the CCEM's. Source 60 is what backs the CCEM's position. But good idea, I'll try expanding that paragraph!

• @WikiFouf: I didn't get this ping since it wasn't signed in the same edit. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie ah good to know! WikiFouf (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes made

@Sammi Brie hey!

All the requested changes have been made, except for the YouTube sources which I'm waiting on your answer for (see above).

• I took down the map. I posted a request for a new one on Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, hopefully someone can make it.
• Requested copy changes have all been made.
• Expanded a single-line paragraph with a quote, as suggested.
• Added citebundle where suggested, although I'm not sure if I dit it the ideal way, it looks very cluttered.
• Added alt text to all images.

Hope everything is good, thanks so much for the review! WikiFouf (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Your citebundle is right; I had to take a ref out because you called it elsewhere. We're almost there @WikiFouf, but those YouTube video references... If I asked you to excise them because I don't think they are reliable, would you have to remove too much content? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

But since they're used for opinion rather than fact, isn't the question whether or not they're notable rather than reliable? Of course it wouldn't be the biggest deal to remove them, but I kind of think it would be unfortunate to limit the mentioned viewpoints to those of the press, when there's wider spectrum of public opinion to analyze... Let me know what you think.

Also, doesn't one of the channels fit the 2nd acceptable use of self-published works, as I mentioned? WikiFouf (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to ping @Sammi Brie --WikiFouf (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• @WikiFouf: I'm looking at the videos. 22 and 48 don't seem to have anything the article needs, except maybe support for this sentence: Supporters of an elevated REM de l'Est highlighted the mode's cost-efficiency and construction speed compared to tunneling, the potential improvement of eastern René-Lévesque Boulevard, perceived as unattractive, as well as the number of large cities with elevated railway. Is there some other source that says these things and is not a YT video? (Suggestion from me: Mention that the mayor of Montreal East was apparently upset at the lack of a station in his municipality, which [17] does cover.) The NIMBY material is already in [7] and [49]. Rouleau's dissatisfaction is already in [59]. I think they can go without hurting the quality of the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Sammi Brie I've found just one source that was able to replace one of the YouTube ones, for the part about improving René-Lévesque boulevard. The commentary that's in the press on this subject is very monolithic, that L'actualité source is actually one of the few purely "for" editorials I've seen in the whole of Montreal MSM regarding this project, whereas I must have read close to a hundred "against" ones (and those are just the ones I clicked on).

  I had to delete or rework these elements to adjust for the removed sources:

  • Deleted the part about low construction costs and speeds, I couldn't find anyone voicing that argument in the MSM. (I did use my recent readings to add one paragraph about the underground alternative to the "Elevated rail" section, though.)
  • Rephrased the "cities with elevated railway" part because the MSM sources are less argumentative.
  • Deleted the CEM-E mention in the NIMBY line, they aren't mentioned in the MSM sources.

  I also added to that paragraph a mention of an argument about the views from the trains (editorial note: shocked that I found this but nothing on construction costs lol). Also added a small paragraph to the "Environmental" section based on stuff I found in my recent readings. WikiFouf (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2024 (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.

Did you know nomination

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 PrimalMustelid talk 12:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the REM de l'Est, a planned light rail network, was abandoned due to its controversial use of elevated railway in downtown Montreal? Source: Scott, Marian (May 2, 2022). "Radical revision of REM de l'Est includes axing downtown portion of project". Montreal Gazette : "Quebec and Montreal are taking over the management of the controversial REM de l’Est project after Quebec’s pension-fund manager backed out of the project, Premier François Legault and Mayor Valérie Plante announced Monday. The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec’s proposed $10-billion, 32-kilometre light-rail project has raised the ire of citizens’ groups and heritage organizations who slam its elevated portion as an instant eyesore that would tower over eastern downtown."
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by WikiFouf (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

WikiFouf (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Everything seems okay. Good to go! S5A-0043^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)