Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A and B Loop/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2022 [1].

A and B Loop edit

Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a service of the Portland Streetcar system in Portland, Oregon, U.S. It is a vital transit option in the Central City district, with connections to many of Portland's most iconic landmarks and institutions. The route itself is notable for operating the first U.S.-built streetcar in 60 years at the time of its opening. Should this article achieve FA status, it would accompany three Portland transit-related articles that are currently FA. truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial edit

Might look in later; in the meantime, a map would be good. It's a rail line, and if we do a thing well, it's rail diagrams. SN54129 00:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: thanks for commenting! There's a route map right below the GA icon and a route diagram at the bottom of the infobox. Do those not suffice? --truflip99 (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a static image map, just link me to the KML -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: I ended up creating a maplink tp with the KML. Thank you for offering though!
@Serial Number 54129: -- are you still interested in doing a quick review? I added a kml map per your suggestion. --truflip99 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just wanted to ask. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map does it for me! Great work, and thanks too to Guerillero for their offer too! Nice article overall. SN54129 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Support from ChrisTheDude edit

  • This was a great read, my only query is about the naming of roads. You have "via 10th and 11th avenues" (lower case a) but "the B Loop turns right onto 5th Avenue" (upper case A), and "tracks traverse Broadway and Weidler streets" (lower case S) but "a turning loop on Southeast Stephens Street" (upper case S). Maybe this correctly reflects US usage (my usage would be different but then I am British) but I thought it was worth clarifying. Other than that I couldn't find fault..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your input! Per AP style (and maybe others), it is correct to lower case the plural form of street names.1 2 3 --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis edit

Heiyo, it's the guy from Talk:MAX Orange Line/GA1. This article looks pretty fine, just a few comments.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments:
  • The lead looks good! Although I have to comment that it took me a second read to understand the relevance of paragraph 2 due to the absence of mentions of "A and B Loop". Suggest changing "its current name" to "A and B Loop".
    • Done
  • "In February 2003, an advisory committee composed of eastside residents urged extending the proposed Broadway–Weidler alignment farther east up to 21st Avenue." Urge to who?
    • Done
  • "Metro regional government approved"-- awkward wording. Suggest "The regional government Metro regional government", or drop the "The" if that's the preference.
    • Done
  • "including the cost to purchase additional vehicles"-- isn't rolling stock the right term for railway vehicles?
    • Yes, but vehicles works too
  • "The city awarded the contract" --> "Portland awarded the contract"
    • Done
  • Some of the dates in this articles are merely month-year. I feel like some, such as the prototype unveiling one, can have a specific numeric date.
    • I use full date only on important ones (start of construction, opening, etc.) but I agree that this one is important too, so I added it
  • "United Streetcar had relied on Czech streetcar manufacturer Škoda, [...] system from Austrian manufacturer Elin"-- linking countries is considered MOS:OVERLINK
    • Great catch, thank you
  • "Portland Streetcar formed a new service called the "Central Loop Line" (abbreviated as CL Line)"-- you didn't put "abbreviated as" in the lead paranthesis of CL Line, so I don't think that term is needed here.
    • Done
  • "On August 30, 2015, CL Line service" --> "On August 30, 2015, the CL Line"
    • Done
  • "A and B Loop" is a pretty cool name ngl. Or have I been playing too much Watch Dogs--
    • Loved that game
      • Ikr, it's a comfort game for me now.
  • "Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted public transit ridership globally, the route served significantly more riders, with the A and B Loop having carried 3,612 and 3,064, respectively, on weekdays in September 2019." Would love to know the numbers amid the pandemic, although if there's none then it's perfectly okay.
    • I added Sept 2021 figures as we are still in the pandemic lol. But 2020 figures will be added to the main Portland Streetcar article (distant future)
      • I see I see, thanks for the clarification.
  • Suggest using Template:Portal bar for the portal, as the current box template makes a weird empty space on desktop, and it also makes the display cluttered on the App.
    • Done


@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for taking the time to comment on this GAN! Sorry I didn't get back to you a few months ago when you messaged me, I took a long hiatus from wikipedia. But I'm back now, so let me know if you need anything. --truflip99 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, and thanks to you for the quick response. I took a second quick read, and the last thing I would suggest is to add the Use mdy dates and Use American english template; put them according to MOS:ORDER. After this I'll support. GeraldWL 01:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: those are done as well. Cheers! --truflip99 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And with that I support this FAC. Excellent work! If you're interested, I have an open FLC, a source review would be great but no pressure of course. Happy editing! GeraldWL 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Disclaimer: I wrote about 6% of the article according to XTools, but only participated in the very early stages. As such, I think I should be sufficiently distanced to be able to conduct a simple source review.

  • Formatting is generally consistent and orderly.
    • One issue I see is the use of {{rp}} on citations that have only one use; I recommend just integrating them into the citation for a tidier appearance.
      • Resolved
  • Citation 21's title doesn't match the title used in the document (The Portland Streetcar Loop, Facts at a Glance). Not a major issue, just curious as to why it was changed.
    • Fixed
  • Citation 41 uses a book from Arcadia, a known author mill. While the author seems to have good credentials (historian and art museum director), I'd like to see a higher-quality source used instead.
    • Replaced with an Oregonian source

That's all I have. Although I couldn't comment on the prose, it looks fine to me and reads well. SounderBruce 03:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SounderBruce! I've addressed your comments. --truflip99 (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are good to go, then. SounderBruce 05:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA edit

  • There's a MOS:SANDWICH issue in the Opening and closing of the loop section. Please remove this issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing that out. Resolved. --truflip99 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D edit

I have surprisingly strong views on why circle lines are a rubbish idea, so strap yourself in for some robust comments! The article is in good shape, but is a bit imprecise at times. I also have concerns over sourcing.

IKEWYM -_-
  • Not sure why currency is being converted into 2019 dollars? Given that everything is pretty recent, I'd suggest just dropping the inflation calculations.
    • Futureproofing. The inflation amount has already increased pretty significantly so I don't see what the problem is.
      • Seems unnecessary, and why 2019 dollars are being used in a 2022 FAC is unclear. These kinds of conversions don't make much sense for public infrastructure projects, as their price don't necessary change in line with inflation (which measures the prices of household goods). Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The A and B Loop is a streetcar circle route of the Portland Streetcar system " - remove 'streetcar' here and move it into the second sentence as it's pretty obvious.
    • Sure, I can do that, but that's really there for the wikilink to streetcar, to makes things easier.
  • " it consists of two distinct services " - delete 'distinct'
    • Replaced with streetcar as I still want that vital wikilink
  • The history section should briefly note the evolution of the system up to 1997 (e.g. when did it start, and what did it involve at this time?). Assume that readers don't know anything about this topic coming into the article.
    • Expanded
  • "During that time, the council approved funding for a $16.7 million retrofitting of the Hawthorne Bridge,[3] which they had hoped would carry a future streetcar line between OMSI and the Oregon Convention Center as proposed by the Buckman Neighborhood Association" - the tense is a bit off here, and using 'retrofitting' in this context is awkward (e.g. 'The council approved a $16.7 million project to retrofit' seems better)
    • Fixed
  • "In July 2001, the Lloyd District Development Strategy unveiled" - doesn't make sense as the strategy can't have 'unveiled' anything.
    • Reworded
  • "Concurrent revitalization efforts of nearby Rose Quarter supported this plan" - pretty much ditto
    • Taken care of by above rewording
      • I'm afraid that it hasn't. Nick-D (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nick-D: could you please clarify what the issue is here? I don't seem to follow unfortunately. --truflip99 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • 'Supported' is the wrong word/concept, and the sentence is needlessly imprecise. Nick-D (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Nick-D: gotcha. I just omitted it as I don't want to make the prose any longer just to say said plan, which had no direct bearing on the project, also wanted to build a streetcar line along already mentioned route --truflip99 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total cost of the project, including the cost to purchase additional vehicles, amounted to $148.8 million (equivalent to $167 million in 2019 dollars), with a federal share of just over half ... On April 30, 2009, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced $75 million in federal funding for the project" - please explain the role of the Federal government here: from an Australian perspective it seems surprising that local governments were in effect committing federal government funds before this was approved by the federal government.
    • Local governments can approve local transit projects whenever they want, they just rely on federal funding (usually a 50% share) to proceed with construction. If they are unable to acquire the federal funding, they either try to look for other sources or suspend the project.
      • This is still confusing I'm afraid. The order in which stuff happened is described seems unnecessarily convoluted here. Can this be restructured as a) the budget at the time the project was approved b) where this money came from and c) what the actual cost ended up being? At present c) seems to come first, it's not clear if a) is anywhere and b) is hard to follow. Nick-D (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portland awarded the contract to Stacy and Witbeck" what's 'Portland' in this context?
    • The city government
  • "and construction began the following year" - spot check failed: a 2009 source can't verify a statement about something that happened in 2010.
    • Thanks for catching that, error on my part. Fixed.
  • "For most of the project route, crews laid tracks in three-to-four-block increments" - is this referring to city blocks, or a technical term? Also, verification is also failed here as the source says that this is how all the construction was done.
    • Clarified city blocks. Also, not sure how you can say this is an outright source fail. Parts of the route are on bridges and overpasses, hence "most of the route".
      • It fails as the source does not support the current text (spot checks tend to work best when they're binary). Surely another source could be used here? Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarified text again. It's inferred that we're talking about streets here. I'll try to look for more sources, but what's there now really should suffice.
        • Update -- Found another source from Portland Streetcar itself.--truflip99 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The U.S. Congress approved a spending bill in 2005 that included $4 million for a locally produced streetcar vehicle" - this should be more precise.
    • Clarified
  • Are there any proposals to modify or expand these lines? (the long gaps between services seems a problem, for instance)
    • Regarding this article, no, this project is complete. There are plans to expand the overall system, the Portland Streetcar, and such information would be better suited for that article.
  • I feel that the article is missing a bit of critical analysis: did this project achieve its goals?
    • A lot of critical analyses cover the entire system in general, not a particular route. As such, that information is better suited, again, for the Portland Streetcar article.
      • I was expecting to see discussion of whether the line has hit the levels of ridership that were expected when it was approved (which is common for these kinds of articles), and other reception of the line. For instance, what do locals think about the usual problem with circle lines in that they're often a very slow way to get across the 'circle'? (or does this not matter as most riders use it for shortish trips between stops?). Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've expanded on the ridership, but I'm perceiving some bias from you regarding the circle line bit. While you're not incorrect (and I agree with you; I've ridden the line myself and have many times opted to just walk across it), that discussion regarding this particular topic just hasn't taken place formally nor on a level worthy of coverage on WP (that I can find). Best I could find is from The Oregonian (here and here), which unfortunately has bias all over it.
          • Heh, I'm not actually biased against circle lines! (aside from the insanely bad one in Melbourne). The public transport literature I've read often notes that they're a dud idea though. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I still find this material underwealming, and lacking in credibility to be honest. Public transport projects tend to be heavily debated (including between enthusiasts for them, as well as their opponents), and this aspect of the light rail line is missing. The article seems to imply that there was political consensus for the project throughout its existence, for instance, which seems unlikely. Nick-D (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • @SJ Morg: any thoughts on this? --truflip99 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nick-D has a valid point, given the high bar for FA, although I don't have nearly enough experience with FARs to know what types of content are generally considered essential for FA approval. However, you (Truflip99) may also be correct that there has been too little coverage in reliable sources to be able to add a critical anaylsis section. But the project certainly did not have universal support (no major project like this does, not even in Portland, where public works projects often do have fairly strong public support), so Nick-D's comment that the article appears to lack any content on that seems fair. Unfortunately, this is not something I want to spend time on in the near future, and when the point was raised the only examples of criticism that came to my mind were the 2013 Oregonian article you already noted above (about the line's average travel time being slow, which I agree was not very objective) and a similar one in Willamette Week. It seems likely that there must have been other articles (or some kind of document from Portland Streetcar Inc.) reviewing the Eastside streetcar project a few years after opening, but I cannot immediately recall, and don't want to spend time looking for such, as I have too much else on my WP to-do list. Sorry. – SJ Morg (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I spent a couple days looking through local publications in the archives available to me and found nothing. I'm not really willing to spend any more time than I already have on something that's THAT hard to find. If it's THAT hard to find, then I start to question the notability of what's being asked for. An editor simply cannot write about what wasn't thoroughly covered. And again, we are referring to this particular project of the system. The original line (NS Line), as well as the overall line (Portland Streetcar) were critiqued more thoroughly. --truflip99 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm from Australia, and found some commentary in a few minutes of Googling. I can't comment on the reliability of sources, but this is suggestive. [2], [3], [4] and [5] (the last likely not being a RS, but it would be interesting to know what the result of the lawsuit was given what it presents looks like a poor design choice). [6] also has some good details on how this was funded, noting that the Obama Administration used funds for public transport in ways that the Bush Administration was unwilling to with this being the first project to benefit. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • @Nick-D: I've expanded the article using those sources. Source 4 though is regarding the NS Line. I've done what I can with what's available. --truflip99 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a full source review given the problems I found above. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SounderBruce: as the one who did the source review, could I ask for your input?

@Nick-D: Thanks for the input! I've responded to your comments. --truflip99 (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: this what you've reverted it to isn't correct grammatically. If this form of words is used locally, you're going to need to translate it for non-locals. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a native speaker of Pacific Northwest English (although I'm from Washington, not Oregon) I would consider phrasing it, "Metro, the regional government of the Portland metropolitan area, ..." (t · c) buidhe 11:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D and Buidhe: I too speak native Pacific Northwestian. Holding my ground per MOS:TIES, although I don't have a problem changing it for non-locals, but that would contradict said MOS, IMO. Local publications use this phrasing regularly, albeit often preceding it with "the" save for headlines: The Oregonian, Willamette Week, Portland Business Journal, KGW, KOIN, City of Beaverton, bikeportland --truflip99 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS makes no allowance for regional dialects. It speaks of "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" and that such articles "should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". (Emphasis added.) If I were closing a nomination I would not promote if the article used regional colloquialisms in its normal prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the phrasing that Nick-D objects to could be confusing because it's difficult to parse for someone who isn't already familiar with Portland local government. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misinterpreted the MOS. Fair enough. Reworded. --truflip99 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick-D, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While my comments are addressed and I have no objection to promotion once a further source review is conducted, I have to say that I remain unenthusiastic about this article. I'm really not convinced that it's the best possible article on the subject. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

  • Gog asked me on my talk page to weigh in because of Nick's concerns above.
  • "Rose, Joseph (September 22, 2012). "The little trolley that might not". The Oregonian." current footnote 46 lacks accessdate
    • This might be a misunderstanding on my part, but I thought access-dates were used only on refs with urls. This is not the only footnote in the article that lacks access-date.
      • Gah, sorry. Caffeine lack too early in the morning... I swear I thought it had an url. Struck. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, onto my soapbox/etc ... most of the article is sourced to ... news reports and information from various transport agencies connected to the project. Is there no actual secondary coverage that covers the history of the project AFTER it happened by something not connected to the project? The news reports are concurrent with the development, to a great degree at least, so they are primary sources, not secondary. Basically, it reads like the article is a secondary source - it's taking primary sources (news reports and information from the agencies involved with the project) and writing the article based on those. While yes, we can use primary sources, they should be used sparingly.
  • Spot checks -
    • "when Tilikum Crossing opened to the public and began permitting streetcars to carry passengers on the route section across the bridge" is sourced to this source from 2014 and this source from slightly before the route opened on 12 Sept 2015. Since both sources are from BEFORE it opened, it strictly speaking doesn't support the sentence.
      • Replaced
    • "Metro, the Portland metropolitan area's regional government, approved the eastside streetcar extension with the selection of a locally preferred alternative on July 20, 2006" is sourced to this and this sources which support the information.
    • "The U.S. Congress approved the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 that included $4 million for a locally produced streetcar vehicle." is sourced to this source which while strictly speaking supports the information, it leaves out a lot of detail - like the fact that the money was for a prototype, not all the streetcar, which is the implication given in the article.
      • Clarified
    • "On April 30, 2009, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced $75 million in federal funding for the project, the full amount that was requested. It was the first streetcar project to receive funding under the New Starts program in part due to the Obama administration's departure from the practices of the Bush administration, which saw streetcars as slow-moving and preferred other modes." is sourced to this source which does not support the "US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood" ... in fact "LaHood" does not appear in the Times source at all. Nor does it support the date in April, the fact that it was the full amount requested, nor the "New Starts" name.
      • This only happened yesterday after I inserted a sentence in between the name and the supporting source. Rectified.
  • Having spot checked four statements, and found issues with two not supporting the information, and one other being slightly misleading about it, I would suggest that someone needs to do a full check of sources against the statements they support, looking for other issues.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
I think there needs to be some further work done to check sourcing with this article. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review. I'll go ahead and do a full overhaul. Will need a few days. --truflip99 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

Hi Truflip99, I am going to state what you probably already know, just so we are clear. You could do with checking all of the citations in the article - yes, that's a brute of a job. Nick-D's and Ealdgyth's comments should have given you a clear idea of what is needed. Once you clarify that you have done this, we then need to see if we can find a volunteer to go through them, or a hefty proportion of them. And essentially they need to be pretty much 100% if archiving is to be avoided. There is a clock ticking and if no one volunteers for this - tedious and thankless - role, then archiving is likely anyway. Clear? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal. I still want it to be fixed though as I take pride in the articles I've written. --truflip99 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: What's the time frame? I'd like to request an extension (or exception) since I found someone willing to do the full review, and given how much work has been put in this nom already. --truflip99 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one as such. We are loath to chop a nomination off at a precise time regardless of what else may be happening. If a review is making progress and looking both thorough and positive you can expect considerable, but not endless, patience. We want articles to be promoted! Obviously, only when they are up to scratch, but we will give leeway for that to happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks by Epicgenius edit

As per Gog's statement above, I'm checking all the citations in the article. Citation numbers are per this version

  • 1 ("Construction Overview, The Portland Streetcar Loop Project". Portland Streetcar, Inc.) - No issues.
  • 2 ("Portland Streetcar Loop Project (Formerly the Eastside Transit Alternatives Analysis) Locally Preferred Alternative" (PDF). Metro.) - No issues.
  • 3 ("About Us Ridership + Performance". Portland Streetcar, Inc.) - The ridership figures are out of date in both places where this citation is used.
    • Updated. Relying on archived url as pdf figures have not been updated since 2019.
  • 4 (Streetcar Loop Project Before-and-After Study (2016) (PDF) (Report). Federal Transit Administration. 2016.) - This citation is mostly OK, but it doesn't support "The CL Line operated the eastside extension and ran an additional 1.2 miles (1.9 km) on the west side via 10th and 11th avenues"
    • Rephrased.
  • 5 (Ames, Sarah Carlin (October 18, 1990). "City Council goes forward with trolley line". The Oregonian. p. B10.) - The Central City Plan isn't mentioned, but the Central City Trolley Advisory Committee is.
    • Rephrased and added ref. Sorry, won't do anymore til you finish so the numbers don't get thrown off. --truflip99 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries, you can keep working on these. That's why I included the title of each source as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 (Stewart, Bill (July 31, 1997). "Streetcars will return to Portland; the city council votes to pay for a westside loop of streetcars described as cheaper than light rail". The Oregonian. p. D1.) - No issues, assuming the Eastside is the part east of the river.
  • 7 (Stewart, Bill (January 22, 1998). "Closure launches bridge make over". The Oregonian. p. D2.) - No issues.
  • 8 (Stewart, Bill (April 24, 1999). "Wait no more: Sunday marks Hawthorne Bridge reopening". The Oregonian. p. C1.) - No issues.
  • 9 ("Lloyd District Development Strategy" (PDF). Portland Development Commission. July 27, 2001. pp. 24–26.) - No issues.
  • 10 (Leeson, Fred (July 17, 2001). "Portland grand plans in works in Lloyd District". The Oregonian. p. B3.) - No issues, but this mentions the plan in passing, while #11 is much more comprehensive.
  • 11 (Leeson, Fred (July 20, 2001). "New streetcar route follows different mission". The Oregonian. p. 24.) - No issues.
  • 12 (Wood, Sharon M. (April 23, 1984). "Robust Broadway Bridge celebrates 71st year in fine shape". The Oregonian. p. B5.) - Dates are fine. There are two rail lines mentioned, but which one is the streetcar line?
    • Both were streetcar lines.
  • 13 (Oppenheimer, Laura (February 17, 2003). "South Corridor MAX plan unveiled". The Oregonian. p. E1.) - The part about extending the proposed Broadway–Weidler alignment farther east up to 21st Avenue isn't mentioned. Sources 14 and 15 do mention that the eastside citizens support that proposal, however.
    • Oppenheimer was added later. Fixed.
  • 14 (Leeson, Fred (February 17, 2003). "Streetcar officials seek eastside desire". The Oregonian. p. E2.) - No issues.
  • 15 (Leeson, Fred (June 6, 2003). "Streetcar backers propose loop through inner eastside". The Oregonian. p. D2.) - The reference doesn't seem to mention that the officials supported a routing via the new bridge, only that such a plan had been proposed, and that Portland officials endorsed some form of the loop.
    • "Gustafson said a proposed new Caruthers bridge would be the "preferred option." The streetcar could share the bridge with a Southeast Portland light-rail line if regional officials select an inner-Southeast light-rail route in coming months, he said." -- ? truflip99 (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see where it said that now. No issues then. Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this, but I should be done soon. Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments added. --truflip99 (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New reference numbers as of this version. I see refs 1-15 are now refs 1-16 with the addition of 5.

  • 5 (Mayer, James (March 31, 1988). "Portland City Council boldly goes into 2000". The Oregonian. p. 1.) - No issues.
  • 17 ("Eastside Streetcar Alignment Study" (PDF). Portland Office of Transportation. June 25, 2003.) - No issues.
  • 18 (Stern, Henry; Nkrumah, Wade (June 26, 2003). "City Council watch". The Oregonian. p. C2.) - No issues.
  • 19 (Mortenson, Eric (May 2, 2008). "Panel realigns route of new light-rail span". The Oregonian. p. D1.) - No issues.
  • 20 (Portland Streetcar Loop Development Strategy (Report). Portland Office of Transportation. April 14, 2008. p. 1.) - This reference is a page that only contains a link to a PDF document. I could confirm this on p. 1 of the document, but the document itself isn't linked in this article.
    • replaced with PDF
  • 21 (Portland Streetcar Loop environmental assessment: Finding of no significant impact (PDF) (Report). Metro. July 9, 2008. p. 2.) - I'm not sure why the link in this reference does not work for me, but it may just be my VPN configuration. The archive link does, and I could confirm this on p. 2.
  • 22 (Eastside Transit Project Locally Preferred Alternative Report (PDF) (Report). Metro. July 20, 2006.) - This is a 164-page report. Which page in particular is being referred to? I could find the date of the report on p. 1 (PDF p. 15), but I'm not sure if this is being used to cite the whole route that was approved, or just the date.
    • Added page 1.
  • 23 (McGrain, Maureen (July 28, 2006). "Metro says yes to expansion for streetcar". Portland Business Journal.) - This reference merely states that the route was approved "last week" from July 28, 2006. It didn't give a specific date.
    • The date is confirmed by previous and accompanying source. This ref is to support that Metro indeed approved it.
  • 24 (Mayer, James (September 7, 2007). "Streetcar extension gets green light". The Oregonian. p. D1) - No issues.
  • 25 ("The Portland Streetcar Loop Facts At a Glance" (PDF). Portland Streetcar, Inc. May 2010.) - No issues.
  • 26 (Pope, Charles; Rivera, Dylan (April 30, 2009). "Feds approve $75 million for streetcar expansion". The Oregonian.) - No issues.
  • 27 (Miner, Colin (October 26, 2009). "Funding a Desire Named Streetcar". The New York Times.) - The NYT does allow limited access to articles published after 1980 for non-subscribers. As for verification, the source says that the Bush administration funded projects based on their speed across long routes, but it doesn't mention that the Bush admin singled out streetcars specifically; it merely makes that implication.
    • Fixed both
  • 28 ("Feds give $75 million for Oregon streetcar". Portland Business Journal. April 30, 2009.) - No issues.
  • 29 (Hamilton, Don (August 5, 2005). "Iron firm forges streetcar desire". Portland Tribune.) - No issues.
  • 30 ("Oregon Iron Works gets contract for streetcar". Portland Business Journal. January 26, 2007.) - No issues.
  • 31 (Brugger, Joe (July 1, 2009). "Transportation secretary watches as 'Made in USA' streetcar makes debut". The Oregonian.) - No issues, based on simple calculations of the day of the week.
  • 32 (MacKinnon, Merry (May 13, 2009). "Streetcars soon to be made in Oregon". Portland Tribune.) - No issues.
  • 33 (Redden, Jim (June 13, 2012). "Streetcar on a roll, but not just yet". Portland Tribune.) - No issues.
  • 34 (Rivera, Dylan (August 14, 2009). "Portland inks $20 million deal for locally made streetcars". The Oregonian.) - No issues.
  • 35 (Webber, Angela (July 20, 2011). "Eastside streetcar loop will be delayed, number of cars reduced". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 36 (Schmidt, Brad (July 19, 2011). "Portland's $148.3 million eastside streetcar project delayed five months, includes five streetcars instead of six". The Oregonian.) - No issues; this ref also supports the info backed up by #35.
  • 37 (Baer, April (June 25, 2009). "Construction Begins On Eastside Streetcar Loop". Oregon Public Broadcasting.) - The link is dead, but there were no issues with verification.
  • 38 (Carinci, Justin (February 17, 2009). "Stacy and Witbeck wins streetcar contract". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 39 ("Streetcar History". Portland Streetcar, Inc.) - No issues.
  • 40 (Carter, Dan (February 9, 2010). "Streetcar Loop Project". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 41 (Rose, Joseph; Bella, Rick; Muldoon, Katy (July 18, 2010). "Portland – Broadway Bridge will close". The Oregonian.) - Technically, this was published before the closure.
    • Does this need to be fixed?
  • 42 (Rose, Joseph (September 2, 2010). "Two lanes, sidewalk of Portland's Broadway Bridge set to reopen Saturday". The Oregonian.) - This was also published before the reopening, but I don't think this is a big deal unless something happened that pushed back the bridge's reopening at the last minute.
  • 43 (Rose, Joseph (July 5, 2010). "Streetcar work shutting down Broadway Bridge". The Oregonian. p. A10.) - No issues.
  • 44 (Vorenberg, Sue (February 18, 2011). "Streetcar work wraps up on Broadway Bridge". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues, but the archive link doesn't work.
  • 45 (Vorenberg, Sue (November 5, 2010). "Pearl streets reopen with changed traffic patterns". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 46 (Carter, Dan (December 22, 2010). "Portland Streetcar flyover bridge near OMSI". Daily Journal of Commerce.) - No issues.
  • 47 (Rose, Joseph (April 26, 2012). "Portland Streetcar Loop extension's overhead wires go 'hot' Friday morning". The Oregonian.) - No issues.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments. Thank you for working so hard on this! --truflip99 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius and many thanks for undertaking this. Note that there is no requirement for you to check every cite. Only enough for you to either be satisfied that the article preserves source to text integrity or, as the case may be, that it doesn't. Just how much checking that requires is piece of string issue. If I am not being clear, feel free to come back at me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I see, thanks. Based on my checks so far, I'm satisfied that the article preserves source to text integrity. I checked roughly half the sources and it seems that most of the issues are either because the references have since been updated or because the source was added in the wrong place. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: anything else that needs to be addressed? --truflip99 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/A_and_B_Loop/archive1&oldid=1077742109"