Talk:Rainier Beach station/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: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 12:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. I will make detailed notes as I go, returning to the lead at the end. Can I suggest you record any issues that you have addressed with comments and/or the {{Done}} template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text more difficult to read at a later date, and this review is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location

General. The lead serves to introduce and summarise an article. The article should stand alone, and so should not rely on the lead for its introduction. I suggest that some of the location from the lead should also be included here, particularly the Central Link line and adjacent stations.
- The adjacent stations are included in the Services section, mainly because the line is tied to service patterns. Upcoming changes in the next 20 years will move this station in particular onto a new line, as well as add a new adjacent station. Sounder Bruce 01:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Chief Sealth Trail crosses over MLK Way If you want to use the abbreviation MLK Way, it should be introduced on first occurrence, so the first sentence should mention "Martin Luther King Jr. Way (MLK Way)", although I would tend to spell it out each time, as it makes for much easier reading.
- Y Done.
...into a "food innovation district" along with traditional transit-oriented development A few extra words to explain food innovation district and transit-oriented development would be really helpful. It also saves people following the links to try to understand your article, and not returning to read the rest of it.
- Given that the links are there and more comprehensive, I feel like stopping to explain fundamental terms (in the industry) would be redundant and would unnecessarily bloat the article.

I don't think the article is likely to become bloated any time in the near future. The issue is summed up in your use of (in the industry). Wikipedia is not written for people (in the industry), but is an encyclopaedia for Joe Public. Even for B-class, the language must be "appropriately understandable". This reads like jargon, though you may not think so if you are (in the industry), and as such, needs a few words of explanation to help the average reader to understand it appropriately. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 9 contains a very good (brief) description of what a food innovation district actually is. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Added descriptions with what exactly a food innovation district entails, as well as a simple explanation of TOD (walkable housing/offices near station), but I really can't think of anything simpler than that.

Much better. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single sentence paragraphs. The final two paragraphs are single sentences. Ref 18 contains sufficient details to add another sentence to resolve the first one. Ref 19 includes details of service interruptions, which could be used to expand the second. Alternatively, a linking clause could be used to join the two paragraphs together.
- Y Merged, but I'm thinking of omitting the shooting entirely. It was a one-time event that probably doesn't warrant coverage.

Station layout

Art

Rainier Beach station also houses six art installations as part of the "STart" program, which allocates a percentage of project construction funds to art projects to be used in stations. Another single sentence paragraph. It could just be joined to the following paragraph, which contains the details of the art installations, but it does not read particularly well. Suggest "Rainier Beach station houses six art installations, which were funded by the "STart" program. This allocates a percentage of project construction costs for art projects, to be used in stations" or somesuch.
- Y Merged.
as part of the Stellar Connections series Are there any details of what the Stellar Connections series is? Could they be added?
- Y Added a short description, but not much else is available.

Services

during regular weekday service, trains operate roughly every 6 to 10 minutes during rush hour and midday operation, respectively, with longer headways of 15 minutes in the early morning and 20 minutes at night. This is too long to be a sub-clause after a semicolon, so would be better as a separate sentence. What does midday mean? I would understand it to mean from about 11:00am to 1:00pm, but then it doesn't account for trains after early morning or in the afternoon.
- Y Decided to call that period "between peak periods", which encompasses the entire period (9 am to 3 pm).
Metro also runs the Route 97 Link Shuttle... Another single sentence paragraph, which should be joined to the previous one.
- Y Merged.

I will move on to reviewing the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Most of the references adequately support the text as written. There are just a few that need some attention.

Ref 6 Growing Transit Communities Oversight Committee. Redirects to psrc.org home page.
- Y Added an archive link
Ref 7 Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan Update. This is a 44-page document, and needs a page number to be specified.
- Y Added page numbers
Ref 11 Sound Move: Launching a Rapid Transit System for the Puget Sound Region. This specifies p.21, which is the pdf page, but is actually p.34 in the original document. It should use p.34, unless the p.21 is qualified to indicate it refers to the pdf.
- It is citing page 21, which mentions a station at Henderson; the cost figure is cited by the Times article at the end
Ref 22 Rainier Valley Link Light Rail Route & Stations. I can find no reference to the architects within this document.
- The sub-caption to the center-left mentions "station designs" with Arai Jackson listed for creating stations

So it does. I missed that entirely. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 27 Eugene’s Sound Transit comission finally visible. This shows a 404 error, even though it says it is archived.
- Looks like the archived copies of the website have been taken down. The text is, however, supported by the ST Art Guide, so I think it's okay to remove it.

Ok.

Lead

The lead should introduce and summarise the main points of the article. It seems a little short.

I think it could mention that planning started in 1995/96, construction of the station started in late 2006, and that there are six art installations funded by the project.
Y Expanded the lead a bit.

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See comments above
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See comments above
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:

I have not put the review on hold, and will only do so if there is no movement. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob1960evens: Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Sounder Bruce 23:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses to the review. I know it can be tricky when someone with no knowledge of all the work that went into producing the article makes suggestions, but that is what the GA process is about. I agree that all issues have been addressed, and am therefore awarding it Good Article status. Congratulations. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2017 (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.