Talk:Tualatin station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Lead of a good length for article length. Prose may be improved by expanding the different elements of the run-on sentence in lead para 1, and I don't think this would make the lead too long.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Mostly appropriate use of wikilinks throughout, even if it seems like a sea of them - again, this can be fixed by un-condensing the run-on sentence.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Prose could be improved, certainly before FA, but it's not too bad. Perhaps it could benefit from a copyedit soon? e.g. "It opened for regular service in February 2009." could be combined creatively with the associated sentence that precedes it, or could be incorporated earlier in the lead.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Using "with a headway" is unnecessary jargon (even with link), just say "running every 30 minutes".
  • "Headway" is most certainly necessary jargon with regards to rail transport. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Main body simply written, nothing exciting but not poor. Has no major errors. I think this should definitely have a copyedit.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• The first sentence of the Station details section could be separated, since it features rather unrelated statements, the latter of which really deserves some expansion with better explanation.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Also, can this be renamed? "Detail" in section headers sounds generally unencyclopedic compared to synonyms "specifications" and "information".
  • No. There are plenty of GAs that use this heading and I'm not about to deviate from that. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Needs some clarity: are the 30 bike spaces included in the 129 or are they additional? It's currently not clear.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• "station's covered passenger area, which exhibits enhancements over TriMet's standard design practices" - exhibit is not the correct word, "has" is fine.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• That sentence is also formatted poorly, so while I think I know what it's saying, it should also be expanded out.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• General feedback at this point: use more words. Lots of information has been condensed tightly, sometimes illogical, generally making things unclear or not lending itself to improving clarity; it also makes it not that good in terms of style.
  • Done by me or GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• End of the station details paragraph is a prose list of simple statements, doesn't flow or read easily.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Public art could also be restructured: first it says there is one piece of art, then mentions the window patterns. The introduction "Public art at the station consists of" is also a bit odd, especially when referring to one single sculpture.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Genuine question: what is a "deviated, fixed-route shuttle bus"? Some wikilink or explanation would be useful.
  • Omitted by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Fail - ideally needs to expand on info and have a copyedit
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Coverage

• Appropriate depth of content in lead
• Seems to mention everything about the station, from its rather simple history to its design and features.
• Repeats some info verbatim without expansion from lead to Services section.
  • Done by GOCE. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• But, stemming from style, has condensed the information so much in some areas that it obfuscates what is trying to be conveyed; detail could definitely be expanded on.
  • Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Fail - decent coverage, but the "needs expansion" is a cross-criteria issue

Illustration

• Good quality images
• Good use of the service map
• Would be nice to have a location map, but not necessary at this point
• Also would be nice to have an image of the interactive artwork (it can be seen in the main image), also not necessary
• Appropriate images
• Appropriate number and spread for length of article
• Pass

Stability

• No major edits in a while
• Pass

Verifiability

• Everything is cited
• But sometimes footnotes are not placed next to the information they are sourcing. E.g. the ref for the Interactivators is actually at the end of the next sentence, which is about something else that the ref isn't sourcing.
  • Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Fail pending ref clean-up

Neutrality

• doesn't seem to be any bias
• Pass

Copyright

• Looks clean
• Pass

Overall

• Immediate fail - based on the recommendation that this article have a copyedit, and the WP:GOCE backlog means that probably won't happen within a few weeks. But I'll be happy to re-review after that! Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Responding to review for new reviewer's reference. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Please don't hold requests for copy edits by GOCE against the article. I request copy edits from this group all the time, often in advance of a GA nom. Seems some concerns have been addressed above, do you mind revisiting? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: - (I'll bear that in mind) sure, I actually don't mind being disproved when it works out well for everyone :) Kingsif (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif, Thanks. Curious, do you plan to pick up the GA re-nom for this article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I don't mind, but we could ask @Truflip99: as well? Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I would most certainly appreciate that, if you have the time. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Truflip99: I'm a bit busy at the moment, but if you ping me at a weekend I will probably be able to get round to it soon. Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)