Talk:Tukwila International Boulevard station/GA1

GA Review

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: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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.	The prose is excellent
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues that would prevent promotion to GA. However, the "History" section seems out of place in the section order. I think it should either be the first (after lead) or last section of the article. It doesn't seem right to separate the "Location" section from the "Station layout" and "Services" sections.
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.	Almost, see below
	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).	All sources appear to be reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No apparent OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyright violations or plagiarism
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Almost. The infobox mentions bicycle parking options, which is not discussed elsewhere in the article, but should be. Otherwise, there are no major omissions with the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues.
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.	All images have appropriate copyright tags. There are no fair use images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant and have relevant and appropriate captions
	7. Overall assessment.	Held pending a couple small issues.

Issues relating to GA that need to be fixed (please respond after my entire comments, not in the middle of this list):

1. The reference at the end of the following statement doesn't appear to directly support the statement: The junction is approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) north of Seattle–Tacoma International Airport and serves as its main entrance, also serving a nearby rental car facility and airport parking lots.
   1. Clarifying that the sentence refers to the highway junction (SR 518 and Airport Way)
2. The reference at the end of the following statement doesn't support the statement (I checked the archived version as well): The routes use the plaza-level bus station under the station, which opened on September 19, 2009, and includes three bays, a public restroom, and real-time arrival screens.
   1. Added individual references to support all of the statements in the sentence.
3. Lead says "[t]rains serve the station 20 hours a day every day", but later in the article it says that on Sundays there is only 18 hours of service.
   1. Revised to say "most days".
4. Lead says the station "includes over 600 parking spaces", but infobox says 600 parking spaces and "station layout" section says that the station has a 600-stall parking lot and, since 2013, "62 additional parking space have been provided at a nearby garage". The inconsistency needs to be corrected.
   1. Revised to say 662 total spaces, and clarifying later that it is 600 owned and 62 leased spaces.
5. Bicycle facilities are mentioned in the infobox, but not elsewhere in the article. The type of facilities should be mentioned in the prose (including the fee for the bike lockers).
   1. Removed un-cited figures, as it is unnecessarily detailed.
6. I tagged a couple statements in the infobox that aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article and thus need a reference: the physical address, disabled access, owner, and bicycle facilities (no ref needed if mentioned in prose as suggested above)
   1. Added some references using the Rider Guide, but most of the information does not normally need to be cited (e.g. address and disability access). In the U.S., disability access is a given for newer transit systems because of the federal ADA, which I've added to the station layout section.

Feedback unrelated to GA criteria:

• images of the station interior and bus platforms would be useful
  • I have some pictures of the mezzanine level and bus level that I can upload to Commons at a later date. There's no shortage of licensed transit photos for Seattle.
• a map in the location section would be helpful to understand the location of the station in relation to the city
  • Creating image maps is a bit of a painstaking labor, and the coordinates menu (with its link to online map services) works just fine. It shows just how far the station is from Seattle proper.
• "[I]n 2016, the main lot began a permit parking trial that reserves spaces for registered carpool vehicles." How many spaces? Is it just reserved parking, or is there a charge? Is there a charge for general parking at the station?
  • I've added the charge ($5) and clarified that other parking is free but unreserved.
• The platform diagram doesn't look very good. I searched Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates and didn't find any templates for platforms. None of the featured articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains#Featured articles has a platform diagram, although 1-2 had plain images showing the station layout. In my opinion, the diagram could be omitted without any harm to readers. If it's kept, it would look better if center aligned. Does the mezzanine also contain the fare gates?
  • The diagram is fairly standard across station articles (and helps in more complex situations, like Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue). I don't find images preferable to the current diagram, as screen readers and translations are much easier with a text-based diagram. Link light rail, like other U.S. light rail systems, use proof of payment instead of fare gates. There are card scanners next to the escalators in the mezzanine landing, which is a passive fare gate.
• How many passengers per hour or day was this station designed to handle?
  • I don't think the maximum capacity was released to the public as part of the planning and environmental review process, but an average daily ridership of 5,000 was mentioned as the predicted demand for the station. Anecdotally, the Link stations are able to push
• The cost of the station could be made clearer (and placed in the infobox). The article states: "A $231.7 million contract for construction of the station and 4.22 miles (6.79 km) of elevated guideway in Tukwila was awarded to PCL Construction in March 2005." It would be helpful to explain how this relates to the cost of the station or extension. Was the 4.22mi of elevated guideway the length of guideway from the preceding station (Ranier Beach), so that that cost represents the cost of the one-station extension of the line?
  • The station and guideway (to Rainier Beach, which I've clarified) are part of the same contract, so the station's cost alone is unknown. Other Seattle articles omit the cost of construction entirely, because contracts cover multiple stations on a single segment and thus can't be separated.

Almost to GA, it should be very easy to address the few outstanding issues. AHeneen (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I will work on addressing the issues you raised over the next day or two. SounderBruce 21:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@AHeneen: I believe that I have addressed every one of your points. SounderBruce 22:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes you have. I don't think that there needed to be an entire sentence about ADA compliance (it could have remained just the disabled access=yes in the infobox), but it doesn't hurt the article. AHeneen (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2017 (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.