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.
The North South Line (NS Line) is a streetcar service of the Portland Streetcar system in Portland, Oregon, United States. Operated by Portland Streetcar, Inc. If you could space out the use of the word streetcar, like you did for light rail in your other nominations, that would be great.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The line has since been extended to 4.1 miles (6.6 km), adding service to RiverPlace and the South Waterfront. Saying it extended to 4.1 miles reads weirdly. I would write "The line has since been extended to RiverPlace and the South Waterfront, increasing its length to 4.1 miles (6.6 km)--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added more detail to this, but there isn't an exact or even approximate date for when the name change occurred as it was all under the planning stages. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and the following year, called for bids to design, build, and operate the proposed service. The nonprofit Portland Streetcar, Inc. was the only firm to respond to the bid request. The infobox states that TriMet also is a system operator. The relationship between TriMet and Portland Streetcar, Inc. should be clarified or expanded upon somewhere in the article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is (if not already, will be) expanded upon in the Portland Streetcar article, as this article is more about just the line. I added that info in the infobox, however. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funding and construction
The city paid most of the cost; other local sources provided much of the remaining funds. This implies that the following sources are local, which is incorrect for the FTA. This sentence should be changed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only $5 million came from the Federal Transit Administration for construction. It was reallocated from TriMet in exchange for a system allowing its buses to trigger green lights at traffic signals. You need to be clearer here. Was the funding reallocated from TriMet? What do you mean by in exchange for a system? Who paid for/provided the system for transit signal priority, which New York doesn't have on many buses, stupidly. You should wikilink it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It was FTA funding initially granted to TriMet and transferred over to the city in exchange for the signal priority (the city via PBOT owns the traffic signals). --Truflip99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following the defeat of TriMet's South–North Line in November, You cannot assume that all readers are familiar with America's election system with elections and ballot measures voted on in November. You should specifiy that a ballot measure providing finding for the line was voted down.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be disputed edit, based on comments from the MAX Blue Line review. I am unsure how to move forward, unless you have a reason for this. Otherwise, I will look into it shortly. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delivery of the first streetcar, which had been expected in late February, was also delayed by a line-of-credit deal, which took six months to secure I am no expert on finances, and I am sure most readers aren't either. Was this kind of financing mechanism expected to be used to purchase the streetcar, or was this used because another means of financing the purchase fell through? What caused the delay? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to your first question - in this case, it was a form of insurance because of the risk involved with working with Skoda, which at the time, had only worked with Eastern Bloc customers (see Export credit agency). I expanded upon it. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was initially a single-track operating on a right-of-way formerly used by the Willamette Shore Trolley You should note that this was a heritage trolley that was in use at the time. Without clicking on the wikilink, the reader would assume that this was a long-abandoned right-of-way.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Until 2012, the north-south streetcar line had no route name, being referred to only as the Portland Streetcar line, because it was the only line in the PS system. This is the first type you abbreviate Portland Streetcar to PS. You should use parenthesis the first time that Portland Streetcar is mentioned, or take out PS, and just write system.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It turns south on Northwest 10th and 11th avenues in the Pearl District and is joined by the Loop Service alignment, passing The Armory and Powell's City of Books. You should clarify this. Does it share the road with the Loop Service or share tracks? Alignment is not clear enough. I know, but I want it to be clear to the readers.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Connections to MAX Light Rail are available at four stops across the line and a transfer to the Portland Aerial Tram So there is only a free transfer to the tram and not the light rail? If not, you should clarify this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For source 32, you wikilink the Oregonian. If you want to do this at all, do this for the first citation, and leave it out for the rest.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ISSN is given (and linked) at the first citation of this magazine (currently source 3, with M.R. Taplin as author). I had figured ISSNs were treated the same as wikilinks within citations – i.e. included only with the earliest citation of a given publication, but I checked a couple of FAs and it appears that that is not the case, so I have added them as requested. SJ Morg (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Source 31, is from November 2003, and you use it to back up the claim that construction began in early 2004. Presumably, the article stated that this is when it was planned. While this might have taken place, given that you don't state the extension was delayed, it would be preferred to have a citation from early 2004. In early 2004, construction began to extend the line south of Portland State University to RiverPlace.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source 34 does not back up this claim: In November 2011, the streetcar line began using new double track on a realigned section of Moody Avenue.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The NS Line includes a short section of bidirectional single-track on Southwest Montgomery Street just east of Southwest 5th Avenue Ditto.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3, which is from 2001, does not back up the claim that the service operated until 2005, or the claim that they were in use on MAX until 2014. I have to trust you on the other claims from this source.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some more background on the previous streetcar service would be useful, including the reason why it was eliminated, which is the same reason across the country, where it was in Portland, and the exact date.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, because these lines eventually became part of the built line and/or the eventual Loop Service. Plus, the article explains it weird: "Two other lines would run along the inner eastside, along the South Park Blocks from Portland State University, and into Northwest Portland near Union Station." --Truflip99 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You noted prominently in the introduction that this was the US' first second-generation streetcar. Why was the plan changed to use modern vehicles? Surely other cities had considered doing this. Why was Portland first? By the way, this point would be good for DYK.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source 8's tile "City Council goes forward with trolley line" indicates that the council decided to go forward with the plan. Shouldn't you note their October 1990 decision, presumably based on the outcome of the feasibility study that was conducted?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source 9's title is "Federal funding seems assured for trolley design". Was this ever obtained, and shouldn't this be mentioned in the section?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking for follow up sources to no avail. It's almost like they just said never mind. The only thing that materialized from the contents of this article is the alignment (which is why I ref'd it), which resurfaced in 1994. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To serve a planned extension to RiverPlace. This was mentioned in source 3 (2001 magazine article, available online), which I have now added as a source here, along with a phrase giving the reason. SJ Morg (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In November 2011, the streetcar line began using new double track on a realigned section of Moody Avenue. Was this always the plan, or was this decided after the initial route via the Willamette Shore Trolley was implemented? Also, could an exact date be provided?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement source I added (magazine from Jan. 2012) and mentioned earlier in this review also addresses both of these points – giving the exact date and indicating that yes, this was always planned. SJ Morg (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They received a connection to the Lair Hill neighborhood that was otherwise cut off by Interstate 5 with the opening of the Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge in July 2012. Again, could an exact date be provided? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should expand the section on the closed stations. You should use this article to provide more information on the specific station closure, including the specific travel time savings and the elimination of stops where crashes regularly took place. You should find a source to find the exact trial closing date in February. The closures required a public hearing, so getting information from an article detailing the hearing would be useful. Also, note the exact permanent closure dates in March and note that some stops were reused for bikeshare. I would note the closed stops in the table.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did this service operate in this first place? Could some background, and perhaps a see also for the Portland Vintage Trolley be provided?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This information is covered in the History section (Bill Naito proposed it). While one could say that operating the trolley service could be seen as a compromise between Bill Naito's and PSI's wishes (vintage vs modern trams), this is not expressly stated and may count as original research. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were operated on regular trips, in place of modern Škoda cars, and a modern streetcar would operate the same schedule whenever a faux-vintage car was not available. I have added a phrase, but the already-cited 2001 source for that paragraph supports the addition (in the paragraph next to the Vintage Trolley photo, "duty" being British for what Americans usually call a run [in an urban transit context] – a set of trips operated by a single transit vehicle on a given day). SJ Morg (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were non-wheelchair accessible To me at least, I am surprised that there were no lawsuits preventing their operation. The tracks were installed after the passage of the 1990 ADA law.
@Kew Gardens 613: I believe I have addressed all pending items (except the map will take a couple of weeks). Please let me know if there is anything else. Thank you again for doing this review! --Truflip99 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your work. I have made a few suggestions that aren't necessary for GA, including additions for other articles, and the map. Concerning Hectares, I pinged @SounderBruce: who made the suggestion in the MAX Red Line review. That wouldn't be disqualifying. Great job! It has now passed. I look forward to reviewing other articles of yours.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 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.
