Talk:Swift Bus Rapid Transit/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Grabbing this article for a GA review. I expect to get this review done by sometime next week. It may be done in stages, where I will post updates with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.

Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article appears to be in good shape for GA. It's an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit.

As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.

Comments

General punctuation comment: I would add quite a few commas to clean up the punctuation of the article. I am happy to do that myself as part of this review - please just let me know if you are okay with that course of action. I will therefore not point out all instances of where commas are needed.
- Happy to let you add in those commas. It's a waste of time for a reviewer to list out each and every little fix that they could do anyway and wait for me to find and implement all those changes. Sounder Bruce 20:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will dive in and add punctuation, and will correct a couple of small typos, which I also did not itemize below. --Concertmusic (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link per Checklink tool: Reference 50 appears to have a broken external link - please review and correct.

Infobox

Clarification request: On the entries for "Number of lines" and "Number of stations", you have "1 (1 planned)", and "33 (33 planned)", respectively. That could be read as 1 line, 1 more planned, as opposed to 1 line, 1 planned line. A possible simple fix might be to add the word "of" as the first word inside the parentheses. Example: "1 (of 1 planned)". Please review - no issues if rejected.
- Done

System map question: What is the significance of the filled dots (such as on 50th Street), versus the directional dots (such as on 41st Street)? I expected to have 204th Street be different than any other station, as it's just one-way, but I may be trying to read too much into the map.
- The filled dots means that there is a pair of bidirectional stations at that intersections, while the other bullets are for stations with only one direction. Most of those single stations are paired with another, but it would be confusing to list out 40th/41st Street without indicating direction, especially when dealing with 204th/College.
  - Thank you for the explanation - that makes good sense.

Lead

Clarification suggestion: It may be worth adding that Snohomsih County is in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area, just to provide geographic context. If you don't like it, leave it.
- Done

Clarification request: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Based on Reference 1, page 37, the chart appears to show that Corridor has higher ridership. That statement should therefore be clarified: "Swift has the highest ridership of any Community Transit route, carrying over 1.5 million total passengers in 2014." Same goes for the entry under "Service".
- "Corridor" refers to the sum total of Community Transit's corridor-based bus routes. I've tacked on page 38 (with the chart showing individual route ridership, but no numbers) to the ref for clarification.

Route

Broken link: Reference 3 appears to have a broken external link - please review and correct.
- Done. Added an archive link too, since the link will break in a few months' time.

Clarification request: 3rd sentence: Can you clarify what is meant by station split? I assume it's on Wetmore in one direction, and Colby in the other, but that's not clear. Also, I am not sure what value Reference 4 has, as I couldn't get much from that page. I am not sure that it supports the referenced sentence in any significant way - please clarify. Reference 5 provides more info in my mind.
- The sentence is read as "a station (that is) split between Wetmore and Colby avenues". I removes the PSRC reference, as I thought it had included details about the county campus.

Clarification request: I was going to ask you to clarify what BAT lanes are, but I think you are using Reference 9 for that purpose. If that is correct, I would move that reference to be immediately after the term " business access and transit (BAT) lanes" to make that absolutely clear.
- That reference is to cite the fact that the lanes begin at 148th, but not the definition of BAT lanes, which is a bit more complicated. Perhaps I should put up a stub with the definition (and citations), given that the term itself is notable enough to warrant one.
  - I love that idea if you are willing.

Reference question: Reference 12 does not appear to show the stop at 204th, so the info in the referenced sentence is not completely supported by that reference. Please review and correct.
- The kiosk maps haven't been updated since 2009, so they do not include the stations that opened after then (including 204th, which only opened last month). The agency map at the end of the section has 204th listed, though, which should work.

Clarification request: The referenced map (Reference 13) does not show SR 104 per se, so an explanation that N 205th is the same as SR 104 may be good. Please review and advise.
- I've included a Google Maps reference that should be sufficient, as it shows SR 104 and the route of Swift clearly.

Stations

Reference question: I think you are using Reference 16, page 3, for just the route length. If that is so, I would place that reference specifically at the end of the number, maybe at the end of "16.7-mile-long (27 km)". The way that reference is currently placed appears to indicate that it also supports the data on number of stations, which it does not support.
- Done

Reference question: Reference 17 supports a statement of stations being "1 to 2 miles apart", which is different from the stated "approximately one mile (1.6 km) apart". Please review and correct.
- Replaced it with a reference supporting the true stop spacing. The archived webpage had inaccurate information, or might have accounted for the long gaps in Everett to tilt the average too high.

Clarification request: 2nd paragraph: Please clarify "shadow service". You do so obliquely in the next sentence, but a better term may be appropriate.
- Done. I can't think of a better term to describe it (many in the transit community have used "shadows" to refer to Swift's overlapping service, so I went with it).

Service

Broken link: Reference 33 appears to have a broken external link - please review and correct.
- Done

Fares and enforcement

Reference correction/addition: Reference 36 in the text (using that reference for the table is fine) does not support the explanation of what constitutes Reduced Fare. If you use this URL, however, as an additional reference, that should fix that issue: http://www.communitytransit.org/reducedfarepermit/
- Done

Reference clarification request: Reference 37 only supports one 25-cent increase, not the entire 75 cent change since 2009. Are additional references available?

CE: I would suggest to change this sentence to clarify that the fares have changed a total of 75 cents: New words underlined: "fares have steadily increased by a total of 75 cents to the present $2.25"
- I've rewritten the sentence in a different way to support the added reference (showing the first fare increase after service began).

Fleet

Reference question: I am not sure that Reference 40 adds value - I found it a slog to try to digest. I personally think Reference 17 does the trick in a much more digestible and shorter document, which you use later in that sentence.
- While that reference is much more digestible, reference 40 provides a crucial citation for the exact bus model (DE60LFA) on page 14 (internally page 2, section 1). The rest of the document isn't needed, though.

Former services

Reference question: Is a reference available for the utility usage of the former interurban railway path? It does not appear that Reference 47 supports that info.
- Reference 47 includes a mention of the trail being on Public Utility District (aka the power/water company) right-of-way, but I've added an additional reference to clarify.

Reference question: Is a reference available for the Community Transit founding date of 1976? Maybe one of the references from the Community Transit article?
- Done

Broken link: Reference 50 appears to have a broken external link - please review and correct.
- Done

Reference question: Is a reference available for the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph?
I've added an archived bus schedule, but the map is not accessible.

Planning, design and construction

CE: 3rd paragraph: I would split that one long sentence into 2, with the 2nd sentence starting at "in exchange".
- Done

Reference clarification: I would move Reference 66 inside the parentheses, since it references just the 2016 inflation conversion, and not that entire sentence fragment.
- Done

Launch and additional stations

CE: 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Please add a descriptor here, as that sentence is not clearly stated: Example shown underlined: "...and the service attracted more than 1,500 riders...".
- Done

CE: 5th paragraph: I would split that one long sentence into 2, maybe 3 sentences: Replace the semi-colon with a period, then with the 3rd sentence starting at "was originally proposed".
- Done

Future plans

Link check: Reference 84 appears to try to open the document, but it never successfully opened for me today. Please test.

It worked fine on my PC just now. A similar document here has the same cited statement, though on page 3-113.

Summary

Very nice, informative, and exhaustively referenced article. I am certain that I could travel to Everett and use this service with my eyes closed, as I am now supremely well informed. There are a few fixes that are necessary for the GA status, but nothing that really stands in the way once those items are addressed. I will put the review on hold to give you time to review and take action. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Concertmusic: Thanks for the thorough review. I hope that I've addressed your concerns adequately, but I do have a few replies to comments that may need additional work. I'll be away from my computer tomorrow, so it may take time to respond back. Sounder Bruce 01:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Great work, and I thank you for the quick and attentive reaction to the review comments. I inserted just a couple of comments to your input above. This article is well-deserving of GA status. Thank you again! -- Concertmusic (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: