Talk:Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a WP:GA Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   • The contract for tunneling and station construction was awarded to JCM Northlink LLC, a joint venture of Jay Dee, Coluccio, and Michels, for $462 million in 2013.

   The sentence is somewhat confusing. I think the wording/punctuation should be adjusted to something along the lines of "...awarded to JCM Northland LLC (a joint venture of the Jay Dee, Coluccio, and Michels companies) for $462 million in 2013."

   One of the buildings that was demolished is referred to as both "Standard Records" and as "Standard Radio"...which is right?

   These issues have been fixed to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

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:

   Date-styles agree with each other, references-citations are in agreement with each other. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Scrupulously researched. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - looks good. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Nice that it included some of the community input that changed the height requirements of the new buildings/new development. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   That image of the Tunnel-boring machine is amazing. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Doing some more Proofreading-readthroughs to see if I've missed anything - looking good so far. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   I've fixed the two concerns you raised in the "well written" section. Thanks for spotting them both. SounderBruce 22:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   I'll do at least one more readthrough and should be able to finish up within a day or so. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   Nice little article, gave the facts about the construction plus historic background and some human interest. Going forward the only improvements I can think of is to keep the article updated as the construction progresses, especially images and information about the station when it is closer to completion. Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)