Template:Did you know nominations/MAX Red Line

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

MAX Red Line

(

)

... that the MAX Red Line, initially planned decades into the future, was built ahead of other projects because of an unsolicited proposal by Bechtel? Source: "The region’s transit plans from the mid-1980s envisioned a light rail extension to the airport to be built decades in the future. The project leapfrogged over the others in 1997 when construction giant Bechtel Corporation submitted an unsolicited proposal to design and build the link in exchange for development rights to 120 acres near the airport." (Selinger, Philip (2015). "Making History: 45 Years of Transit in the Portland Region" TriMet. p. 82) Supplementary secondary source: " A preliminary light rail alignment to the airport terminal was established in the late 1980s, but regional plans projected construction closer to 2010." ("Airport MAX Red Line" Trimet.)
- ALT1:... that the MAX Red Line was built without the use of funds from the Federal Transit Administration? Source: "In spite of a decision to fast-track the project by eliminating Federal Transit Administration participation, the project required the execution of 85 interlocking agreements and 20 formal approval steps between three public agencies and the private partner." (Selinger, Philip (2015). "Making History: 45 Years of Transit in the Portland Region" TriMet. p. 82)

Improved to Good Article status by Truflip99 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC).

Per WP:DYKRULES #1f newly promoted good articles are only eligible if nominated within seven days of promotion. The article was promoted on 8 January but only nominated on 21 January, 13 days later. Before I quick-fail this, do you have any reason why the rules should not be applied in this case? Regards So Why 12:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC) (Please ping me if you reply here)

@SoWhy: Could you please grant an exception? Was unaware of this given that the information is left out by LegoBot. Having worked so hard on that article, it would have been nice for new editors like myself to have known the need for haste. After all that research and writing, I needed a break. -Truflip99 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this is your first DYK nom and your first GA, I would be inclined to grant an exception. I'll ask at WT:DYK first though if someone objects to doing so. Might take a few days. Regards So Why 16:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - Article does not contain the claim "over a decade ahead of original plans". Per DYK rules, the hook information needs to be in the article and cited before it can be used. Please edit the article accordingly. ALT1 is okay.
Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Cited source is a book by TriMet, the train's owner, making it a primary source. Since it contains a bibliography though I'm assuming it's reliable enough. Waiving #1 requirement per consensus at WT:DYK. @Truflip99: Please address the point above and ping me once you are done. Regards So Why 21:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank you for making an exception. I have addressed what was requested. I hope it suffices. -Truflip99 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Truflip99: The article's lead talks about plans that surfaced in the "mid-1980s" but the article itself does not mention this (per WP:LEDE, the lead should only summarize information in the article). I still cannot find any information about the initial timeline in the article which would support the "initially planned decades into the future" claim. The article is very fuzzy on that which probably should have been caught during GA review but anyway: The history section talks about "One year following the Banfield light rail project's completion..." without giving a date when that was (from MAX Blue Line I guess that was 1986?). So planning began in 1987? Then just say that. Also, even so there is no information in the article about the original planned completion. Last but not least, please don't edit suggested hooks but instead propose a new ALT if the previous hook has been found lacking, otherwise people cannot follow the discussion. Regards So Why 08:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for catching that. The information is there, just not apparently stated. I may have lost it in my efforts to trim the article. I've updated it accordingly. Truflip99 (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Modified ALT0 now supported by article and source. The source is primary as well but should be reliable enough in the context. I encourage you to add a secondary source wherever possible though and it would be good if you could add one to the hook facts in particular. Regards So Why 16:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I've added secondary to ALT0. It says late-1980s as opposed to mid-1980s, but 1987 does occupy a fuzzy area. Truflip99 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)