Talk:Tacoma Dome Station/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list, but you can start addressing any points I raise immediately. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Lead
- "a Link light rail extension will connect..." - How long will this be once finished? I ask because I'm curious, but also because I think it would bring a sense of scale to the proposal. If it's not definite or a solid source isn't available, that's ok.
- It will be about 34 miles from Seattle to Tacoma, with the last segment (a 7-mile extension) opened in 2030. I would rather save this information for the Tacoma Dome Link Extension article, once I get around to writing it.
- Fair enough.
- It will be about 34 miles from Seattle to Tacoma, with the last segment (a 7-mile extension) opened in 2030. I would rather save this information for the Tacoma Dome Link Extension article, once I get around to writing it.
- "a Link light rail extension will connect..." - How long will this be once finished? I ask because I'm curious, but also because I think it would bring a sense of scale to the proposal. If it's not definite or a solid source isn't available, that's ok.
- History
- 1200 stall garage in 1994 + 1200 stall garage in 2000 = 2400 stalls, but the infobox says 2,283. I'm guessing this is a rounding error?
- Sometime between 2010 and 2012, it seems that it was reduced from 2,410 stalls to the present 2,283. I can't find a definite source or reason why.
- Probably some minor remodel.
- Sometime between 2010 and 2012, it seems that it was reduced from 2,410 stalls to the present 2,283. I can't find a definite source or reason why.
- ""iconic face" for an "architectural abomination"." - suggest "for what The News Tribune called an "architectural..."
- Done.
- "halt the return of Amtrak trains to the bypass until full implementation..." - is there an ETA for this?
- So far, the only date is late 2018.
- 1200 stall garage in 1994 + 1200 stall garage in 2000 = 2400 stalls, but the infobox says 2,283. I'm guessing this is a rounding error?
- Future
- "expansion program, approved by voters " - I don't think this comma's needed.
- Removed.
- "expansion program, approved by voters " - I don't think this comma's needed.
- Station layout
- Peirce Transit is linked in History and the infobox. This one is WP:OVERLINK
- Removed.
- Peirce Transit is linked in History and the infobox. This one is WP:OVERLINK
- Services
- Another Pierce Transit link
- Removed.
- Seattle is linked twice here, but not in History, which is its first use.
- Removed.
- Sounder commuter rail is overlinked here as well
- Removed.
- Another Pierce Transit link
- Lead
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- 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:
- You only link sources like The Seattle Times in their first appearance, but MOS:REPEATLINK says its desirable to link each them in each citation.
- I prefer to only link on the first use of a reference, to prevent the reference section from turning into a sea of blue links.
- Fair enough.
- I prefer to only link on the first use of a reference, to prevent the reference section from turning into a sea of blue links.
- You only link sources like The Seattle Times in their first appearance, but MOS:REPEATLINK says its desirable to link each them in each citation.
- 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 concern
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- no concern - earwig's strongest result (13%) comes from common phrases and multi-word names.
- 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:
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no concern
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Excellent work on this. Pass pending a few minor notes. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Thanks for the review. I have left a few comments above for items that I didn't modify the article for. SounderBruce 19:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick replies! Argento Surfer (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Thanks for the review. I have left a few comments above for items that I didn't modify the article for. SounderBruce 19:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent work on this. Pass pending a few minor notes. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
