Jump to content

Talk:2 Line (Sound Transit)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, SounderBruce, I'll be reviewing this. It will take me some time to get through it given the length, but here are some starting comments for the lead.

Thanks for taking this on. I don't mind if the review takes a while, since there's a lot to unpack here. I've addressed the four points you raised about the lead. SounderBruce 01:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The East Link Extension is a future light rail line that will become part of Sound Transit's Link light rail system in the Seattle metropolitan area of the U.S. state of Washington." - Light rail shouldn't be repeated with such proximity
  • "The line will use part of the Interstate 90 floating bridge" - I have no idea what a floating bridge is, so either clarify that or link to the appropriate article here You should link floating bridge at its first mention, not its second
  • "A rail system serving the Eastside has been proposed since the 1960s, but did not gain traction until the establishment of Sound Transit in the early 1990s" - I know of course what you mean here, but the rail system itself cannot "gain traction" (or lack thereof); the proposal "did not gain traction"
  • " During the planning process, the alignment in South Bellevue was debated by the city council" - unclear to me what "the alignment in South Bellevue" refers to
  • Infobox and lead image seem suitable. ceranthor 16:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Went through and made a few copyedits, but the prose looks excellent. Feel free to change any of them if I changed the meaning or you dislike my tweak.
  • Would you consider breaking up the history section into a few sections based on time, similar to the style of articles for artists like Lady Gaga?
    • @Ceranthor: The subsections are already in a vaguely chronological order (with some overlaps based on segment) and I don't think there needs to further subsectioning for most of the History section. I am looking at dividing up the Route refinement section, since it's rather long but needs to be kept together to maintain flow. SounderBruce 23:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Look solid.

@SounderBruce: I should be able to post comments tomorrow. Sorry for the delay! ceranthor 01:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Posted a few comments. Consider the second comment and let me know what you think - and then this should be good to pass. ceranthor 14:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]