Talk:Northgate station (Sound Transit)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Westlake (Link station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northgate Transit Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 08:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be giving this article a Review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 08:41, 12 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:

   A-OK. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 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:

   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:

   Such a pleasure to Review an article and find no referencing problems. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Straightforward article/ Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

   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:

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) 21:09, 12 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:

   Thank goodness for Sounder Bruce! HIs photos are a real help. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am going to do a couple more deep proofreading/readthroughs to see if there's any issues I might have missed. Pending the finding of any problems, I'll probably be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   This article fulfills all the GA criteria. Going forward the only improvements I could suggest would be to flesh out the notability claims in the lead and to see if there are any sources that refer to the community reaction - good/bad - to the Transit Center & its construction. Shearonink (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes

The PSBJ claimed in June 2015 that Mortenson was selected as contractor. The articles on Absher's contract do not mention Moretnson. SounderBruce 04:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)