Talk:Othello station/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Mackensen (talk · contribs) 01:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I've raised a question about ridership, but otherwise this is all fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are free, on Commons, and properly-licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I added alt text as well
	7. Overall assessment.

Hello SounderBruce (talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• This was a good read; I raised a few questions which were mostly addressed by Another Believer (talk · contribs) during the review. I think the only outstanding issue is the daily ridership, which I couldn't verify in the linked source. Otherwise this article is well-written and comprehensive and ready for promotion. Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mackensen: Thank you for your review and improvements to the article. Regrading the ridership issue: the data is split between northbound and southbound boarding/alighting pairs, so they must all be totaled together. Within a few days, the 2015 numbers will be out, so I'll be updating articles accordingly. SounderBruce 04:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @SounderBruce: Thanks; somehow I just missed the northbound/southbound split. I've passed through here a couple times when visiting the area and found transit-oriented development stuff a fascinating read. Good job. Mackensen (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.