Talk:SeaTac/Airport station/GA1

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.

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

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm MrWooHoo. I'd like to quickly explain how I'll be reviewing this article. I will do a general review (checking the criteria), then doing an in-depth prose and source review. Thanks! MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General Review[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See prose review below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See prose review below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Everything appears to be cited.
	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).	Will do an indepth source review below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Don't see any major flaws in terms of coverage.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I don't see any bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No instability either.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Just one concern with the last image. In the caption it says "View from the adjacent parking garage, showing (at left) the pedestrian bridge leading towards the airport's main terminal", however I don't believe the "(at left)" is necessary.
	7. Overall assessment.	Everything is good!

Prose Review[edit]

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

Delink "Airport Expressway" so it doesn't show as a redlink.

Done I will re-add the link when the article is created (I have notes ready in my sandbox, but they're not complete enough for a decent article).

"Mowat Construction" also does not need to be linked. (no redlinks isn't a part of the GA criteria, however it may help you on the way to FA)

Done

"The station was designed by David Hewitt of Hewitt Architects and emphasizes a theme of "flight"." - Why does David Hewitt need to be specifically mentioned, and why is flight in quotes?

Partly done @MrWooHoo: Hewitt needs mention as he is a notable local architect (who worked on other stations and may meet notability for an article); as for the flight in quotes, it's a direct quote from the architect meant to place emphasis on the word "flight". It was copied verbatim from the firm's website and the DJC article (a new reference added to the section), the latter of which passed professional copyediting, so I assume that it would be correct to add quotes. Sounder Bruce 02:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: All concerns have been addressed, and I now believe that this article has met the GA criteria. Passing now! MrWooHoo (T • C) 02:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

No issues from sources that I can see.

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.