Talk:First Hill Streetcar

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

Pioneer Square / I.D. Loop[edit]

This loop was taken out in favor of a simple terminus Jackson, just west of 2nd Ave, so the map is currently inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.25.60 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Hill Streetcar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership Statistics[edit]

With the opening of the second Seattle streetcar line, First Hill's Streetcar, the data traditionally reported to APTA for yearly and weekday ridership is now being reported for both lines, combined.  Different sources are needed to separate out the streetcar lines.  The City-requested KPMG report had separated ridership as well as the SDOT Streetcar report.

http://durkan.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/FINAL-Initial-Summary_Streetcar-Cost-Review-20180831.pdf http://herbold.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/November-2018-Semi-Annual-Streetcar-Report.pdf 

I have attempted to insert the 2017 ridership numbers from SDOT's report and add additional numbers from the 2016 ridership citation, but it was reverted.  Maybe a ridership table (as was done for SLU streetcar) is appropriate here, although it's really only two years of solid numbers at this point. Jwfowble (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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
This review is transcluded from Talk:First Hill Streetcar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 23:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I have made several copy edits to the article, mostly for sentence structure. Please review and revise anything I screwed up.
    Thanks for the copyedits. I did go back and change a few of your tweaks just to match what I remember from the sources.
    The lead is a little short, but passable. Nothing vital is missing.
    "an onboard electric battery" - I'm almost certain electric is redundant, but the possibility of a technical distinction means I've leaving it for you to decide.
    I've decided to remove it.
    According to local improvement district, the term is specific to Canada. I'll let you decide if it should stay linked.
    I will change the redirect to a description of the American version, which is in use by several states.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no concern
  2. 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:
    no concern
    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:
    There's a citation request at the end of the Stations subsection that needs to be addressed in some manner.
    I've hidden the sentence until I can find a suitable source. It's well documented in physical form, but that's not citeable.
    The claim that Metro refers to the line as Route 96 is not supported by the citation given.
    I will have to look for a source that has that claim, but I thought I had added it before.
    Since it's just a minor claim, I've hidden it for now.
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concern
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    ear wig raises no concern.
  3. 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
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concern
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concern
  6. 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
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • @Argento Surfer: Thanks for picking this article up for review. I've answered your concerns above, with the exception of the missing citations. SounderBruce 07:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the two uncited claims hidden, I'm comfortable passing this. Nice work, as usual! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:13, 27 February 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:First_Hill_Streetcar&oldid=1207233985"