Jump to content

Talk:MAX Red Line/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 07:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Having not worked on this one, I can pick it up for review. Just some opening comments below, the rest will come over the next few days. SounderBruce 07:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Passing comments
  • There is a citation needed tag in the expansions section
  • The expansions section should be titled "Proposed extensions" or "Planned extensions"
  • Far too many references appended to the last sentence in the Service section. Spread them out.
  • The Public art list should be given more context or integrated into station articles
  • References 10, 23, 27, and 37 are missing date information
    • Is Reference 37 supposed to be a press release? It needs to be marked and perhaps linked to an archived webpage.
Done. I hope that's what you meant for the extensions section?? --Truflip99 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Just following up on this review. The Done above encompasses all of your comments, not sure if that was unclear.. if so I apologize. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being slow to continue this review. I'd rather wait until the GOCE copyeditor is done with their work before moving into the prose side of things. SounderBruce 05:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I believe he marked the CE as done on the GOCE request page, although I reverted some edits as he omitted some information that gave value to the article, as well as added upon other edits. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lead and infobox
  • "Grade-separated" does not belong in the character paramemter. I assume you mean elevated guideways or short bridges/underpasses, which would be covered by "at-grade and elevated".
Doesn't it? I'll remove it anyway. --Truflip99 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out Beaverton Transit Center in the infobox.
Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uMap citation for the length is not a reliable source and the fact sheet does not list the entire length (which goes against WP:SYNTH). These need to be replaced.
Removed and reformatted to avoid having to state full line length for now. --Truflip99 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to space apart the uses of "light rail" in the first sentence. I suggest the following:
    • The MAX Red Line is a light rail line in Portland, Oregon, United States, operated by TriMet as part of the MAX Light Rail system.
Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead feels a bit short, especially when it comes to describing the history of the project and its early planning.
Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the en dash in "public–private partnership".
Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting a third paragraph or something more substantial. SounderBruce 06:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: sorry I've been unresponsive as the progress on the review of this page had gotten so slow that it ended up overlapping with my travels in Europe. What more did you want for the lead? The Red Line's history is relatively short and sweet. Any suggestions? --Truflip99 (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. SounderBruce 05:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History
  • Is Doug Wright a major figure in the Red Line's creation? If not, his name can be omitted in favor of his title.
Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior services from downtown to the airport should be moved up to the beginning of the Background section, along with some background on the airport at the time of planning.
Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce 06:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Just following up. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead redux

Sorry about the delay. I've had this review on the back-burner for a while and I hope to get this done soon.

  • "on a section of track originally built for the Blue Line;" should be "shared with the Blue Line". Save the detail for the history paragraph of the lead.
  • I would split the sentence after "predominantly west to east" and combine the remaining fragment with the statement describing the airport section.
    • Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving up the following sentence with the largest neighborhoods would also work better, flow-wise.
    • Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No dash in "late-1990s"
  • "fast-tracked", while a great pun, isn't as good as "accelerated"
  • "promptly" isn't necessary
  • "was completed"
  • "strong westside ridership on the Blue Line"
  • "Existing plans" isn't a good descriptor. I'd like to see "Tri-Met plans to further extend the line..."

SounderBruce 07:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year @SounderBruce:! --Truflip99 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue, but I've had difficulty getting into a reviewing kind of mood recently. Must be the weather.

Anyway, let's power through this. SounderBruce 08:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • "a right-of-way" doesn't sound quite right. Perhaps including right-of-way reserved for future transit, which was later realized as the I-205 Transitway
  • Too many sentences begin with "In/by [date]". I suggest breaking them up.
  • The note about Tri-Met's hyphen doesn't really belong and just serves to confuse readers. Just use the modern form.
    • @SJ Morg: as the proponent on this, thoughts? I'm okay with the suggestion. --Truflip99 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not actually suggest using the old version in the text, but rather just added the note (to avoid reader confusion) after you chose to use the old form in any sentences with pre-mid-2002 (date of Tri-Met's small name change) information. However, your choice to do so seemed logical to me, which is why I added a brief explanation, rather than converting "Tri-Met" to "TriMet" in all cases. Also, I have always felt strongly that "Tri-Met", with hyphen, should always be retained where it appears in the titles of citations, as removing the hyphen there would be changing history and a disservice to readers. Bottom line: I guess I sort of disagree with SounderBruce's position and feel that your (Truflip99's) handling of it is logical, but I'll let you two decide what is best. SJ Morg (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to retain it. IMO, it's not SO confusing that it compromises readability. It's literally the same name except with a hyphen. It would be more confusing to not have it in the prose, while retaining it in the citation I think. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regional transit plans had already began calling for a light rail extension" needs to be re-ordered.
    • Done. Pausing here. Will continue later. Weather in Portland also sucks. --Truflip99 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The airport expansion sentences are pretty short and could be merged together.
  • The instances of {{convert}} need to be fixed like so:
    • 5.5-mile (8.9 km) extension
    • 120-acre (49 ha) (hectacres are preferred to square meters)
  • A short description of the Portland International Center would be helpful.
Funding and construction
  • "federal regulation" needs to be pluralized
  • "right-of-way" in this instance should be replaced with property
  • "As a solution" would read better as "To solve this,"
  • Combine the first two sentences with the mile figures
  • Combine the "Funding" sentence fragment with the largest contributor, and follow in descending order
  • Re-order the "progressed quickly" sentence to put the aforementioned phrase in front
  • "Single rail" should be "linear rail", no?
  • "Western termini" should be terminus, despite being two stations
  • Mention that C-Tran's services are coming from Vancouver across the river
  • Mention the reason that Tri-Met omitted luggage racks
  • "No-transfer" should be "one-seat", which is a more common phrase
  • Move the re-introduced night bus service out of the notes section and into the prose after the 2008 change.
Future
  • The subsection isn't necessary, unless another Future proposal is added
  • "extended the Red Line" should be "extend the Red Line"
  • Again, "no-transfer" should be "one-seat"
  • Spell out "10 additional stations"
  • "Light-rail" should be unhyphenated
  • Preliminary designer isn't notable enough for a mention
Route
  • The map need to have more contextual elements (like highways...or the airport itself) to be useful.
  • Un-abbreviate the 5.5 mi in the first sentence
  • "Wherein" should be "where"
  • "Following" should be "Beyond" or "After"
Stations
  • Split the shared listings into their own sentence
  • Move up the Airport MAX listing into the first sentence
Service
  • The ridership chart isn't necessary, unless you add data going back to 2001
    • I would like to retain it as I think ridership statistics are always valuable information. It certainly doesn't hurt to have it. Unfortunately, TriMet did not provide individual line stats until 2016. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention times for the first and last trains
  • Mention frequencies during low-service periods
  • Reference 69 should be moved to the next available punctuation mark

@SounderBruce: I have addressed all of the above requested edits. Not to rush or anything, but I would like to finish this up a little sooner with your assistance, so I can move on to other articles. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: The changes look good, but I would definitely like to see the Tri-Met/TriMet issue resolved without having to use the notes system, and the ridership table's removal. It can easily be explained in prose. SounderBruce 20:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I'll give in to both, but I can't guarantee I won't add the table in the future. 2018 numbers are due to come out this week. And then there are the future numbers. I guess I'm just really failing to understand why it needs to be omitted. Is there an MOS thing that says we can't have the ridership table? Anyway, Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not in MOS, having such a short table is rather pointless until there's five or so entries. Anyway, this article has finally passed. SounderBruce 02:15, 8 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MAX_Red_Line/GA1&oldid=877416430"