Talk:Astoria Riverfront Trolley/GA1
GA Review
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 09:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article. Arsenikk (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comments
- Fragments in an infobox should start with a capital letter.
- The length of the heritage line should be mentioned in the lead.
- The lack of centenary (overhead wires) is unusual enough for mentioning in the lead.
- No need to repeat links from the lead in the body.
- Just posting this as a reminder (from WP:Link) to myself and others: "A term should be linked, generally, at most once in an article's lead, perhaps once again in the main article body, and perhaps once at first occurrence in each infobox, table, caption, and footnote. Even within these general limits, the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." --Another Believer (Talk) 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with repeating that link once in the body of the article, and the MOS guideline cited above by Another Believer appears to support this position. However, I have not reinstated the link. SJ Morg (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Without trying to make a big discussion of the issue here, linking is always a balance of aiding a reader to relevant pages in contrast to eliminating low-value links which obfuscate the high-value ones. In this case repeating a link two paragraphs down is, in my opinion, a clear-cut case of redundancy. In longer articles, important topics often should re-linked, which is the purpose of the wording in the MOS. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with repeating that link once in the body of the article, and the MOS guideline cited above by Another Believer appears to support this position. However, I have not reinstated the link. SJ Morg (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just posting this as a reminder (from WP:Link) to myself and others: "A term should be linked, generally, at most once in an article's lead, perhaps once again in the main article body, and perhaps once at first occurrence in each infobox, table, caption, and footnote. Even within these general limits, the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." --Another Believer (Talk) 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looks very odd placing an entire sentence in parenthesis.
- The sentence starting with "In November 1998..." is far long to read comfortably.
- Avoid "current; instead state "as of [year]" or just drop the current.
- Please be consistent in image sizes. There is no good reason to force their size.
- Square feet should be converted to square meters, not hectares.
- Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
- "historic-trolley" reads awkward; how about "heritage trolley"
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- FYI only: In the 1990s and earlier, "historic trolley" was a far more common term for these kinds of lines in American English than "heritage" trolley/streetcar (and is probably still about as common even today), but there simply is no one term that is clearly dominant/most common for these types of lines in American English. "Heritage streetcar"/"heritage trolley" – which are among the few alternative terms in use in common use in American English ("vintage trolley" is another) – are closer to the most common British English term, "heritage tramway", so "heritage streetcar" was the best title for that Wikipedia article (particularly given that there are far more of these lines in the USA than in the UK). However, I have no objection to changing this to "heritage trolley" here. By the way, I included the hyphen in the original wording, "historic-trolley service", to make it clear that the first part was a compound adjective (according to American English grammar); however, with "heritage" in place of "historic", hyphenation seems less necessary, I agree. SJ Morg (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was not aware of the term "historic trolley" being common. Also, it was largely the hyphen I was reacting to, but it seems to have sorted itself out by itself. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- FYI only: In the 1990s and earlier, "historic trolley" was a far more common term for these kinds of lines in American English than "heritage" trolley/streetcar (and is probably still about as common even today), but there simply is no one term that is clearly dominant/most common for these types of lines in American English. "Heritage streetcar"/"heritage trolley" – which are among the few alternative terms in use in common use in American English ("vintage trolley" is another) – are closer to the most common British English term, "heritage tramway", so "heritage streetcar" was the best title for that Wikipedia article (particularly given that there are far more of these lines in the USA than in the UK). However, I have no objection to changing this to "heritage trolley" here. By the way, I included the hyphen in the original wording, "historic-trolley service", to make it clear that the first part was a compound adjective (according to American English grammar); however, with "heritage" in place of "historic", hyphenation seems less necessary, I agree. SJ Morg (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see that the chamber of commerce external link provides any information not contained it the article, so it should be removed.
- Fixed in these two edits (same as above). Jsayre64 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
An interesting article. Once the minor issues above are seen to I will be happy to pass the article. Arsenikk (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment and the review. SJ Morg (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks for reviewing. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you from me, also. SJ Morg (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks for reviewing. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
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.