Talk:Seattle Center Monorail/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: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 08:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Almost ready, but there are a few lingering grammar and styling issues.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • "Monorail service reduced on national holidays and closed on Thanksgiving and Christmas" – fragment.
     • Fixed.
   • "and as catalyst for future development of a citywide rapid transit system" – missing indefinite article, I think you meant "as a catalyst".
     • Fixed.
   • "Metro Transit (later King County Metro) and the Seattle Center were replaced as the monorail's operator by a private company in 1994 after signing a ten-year contract with the city." – here, it is not clear who signed the contract with the city: the private company? Metro? Seattle Center?
     • Fixed.
   • "The crash was caused by a brake failure and injured 26 of the 40 passengers on-board the train." "Metro previously provided drivers and maintained the trains, while the Seattle Center employed ticket-takers and janitorial staff." and several other spots: MOS:HYPHEN (minimize use of hyphens when non-hyphenated usage is common, e.g. "ticket collectors")
     • I'll remove the hyphens as needed after consulting online dictionaries to see which are in fact out of popular use. SounderBruce 03:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
   • "The tracks then begin a gradual turn over a small office building and auto repair shop towards the angled 5th Avenue, which begins on the south side of Denny Way and Tilikum Place." "Angled" will not make sense to those who are not familiar with Seattle's street grid. I know what this means but the average reader would benefit from either removing "the angled" or just using the compass direction.
     • Fixed.
   • "the only building that the monorail crosses over is at the intersection of Denny Way and 5th Avenue as part of a long curve in the tracks." Does this refer to the auto repair building referred to above? If so, what about the museum? Technically, the monorail passes over part of that building in the process.
     • Yes, it only refers to the 5th & Denny buildings. The EMP was built around the monorail, so it doesn't really count.

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

   • "The monorail began a month-long closure on March 16, 2020, due to decreased demand amid the coronavirus pandemic in the Seattle area." To me, this seems rather misplaced. Maybe the history section could be better, since in the long run this won't be a long-term service change. Also, as an aside, we don't know how long the closure will actually last. It could well go on for longer.
     • Moved to history section and reworded.
   • "During severe snowstorms, the monorail vehicles deposit de-icing chemicals and salt on the tracks to allow for normal operations" Here, "severe" comes off as a WP:WEASEL word, especially as East Coast folks will consider Seattle's snowstorms to be mild in comparison to theirs.
     • Replaced with "severe weather", which is close to the source's "severe conditions".
   • Overall, I'm also under the impression that the history section could use more subheaders, particularly for recent history (second-to-last subsection).
     • Added one subheader, but I'm not sure that the renovation section can be split evenly and cleanly, as it is part of a linked chain of events.
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:

   But note that the Pasadena Independent has no article; I don't believe reference publishers should be redlinked.

   Redlinks in citations are fine for subjects with notability, and I believe that the newspaper would count.

   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:

   "the only building that the monorail crosses over is at the intersection of Denny Way and 5th Avenue as part of a long curve in the tracks." I would tag this as {{verification needed}} in light of the issue raised above, depending on the meaning of "over". Perhaps "above" is a better word?

   Reworded entirely.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I see no copyright violations at first glance, and every quote is included correctly.

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):

   I know the monorail has a rich history, but the history section is rather overwhelming to read in the amount of details it has. The insertion of additional subheaders might help mitigate this.

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:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Honestly, I'm nitpicking at this point, but it's really the first few grammar errors that are in need of immediate fixing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

   @Jasper Deng: Thanks for the review. I have addressed most of the points above and will work on the hyphen issue during my next readover. SounderBruce 03:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

   Some more things I found upon another read-through:

   • Last paragraph of rolling stock and guideway section: Throughout the paragraph, it is not clear if these descriptions apply to a single train, or are totals across both trains (as only even numbers of tires are listed). On a stylistic note, let's try to avoid redundantly saying "monorail trains" (emphasis mine).

   • Fixed.

   • That paragraph and others: MOS:UNITSYMBOLS suggests that we should not use "miles per hour" in full except once, since this unit is used quite a few times.

   • Fixed.

   • "The firm would collect monorail fare and concession," – this use of "fare" is in the countable sense, so I think it should be pluralized as "fares". It's also not clear what "concession" means; I take it to mean an operating concession but the average reader does not know what that is.

   • Fixed, and clarified with a link and new source.

   • " as well as surcharge on fair tickets" – much in the same vein as the previous point, "surcharge" alone does not seem quite right. I think it should be "a surcharge", considering that the fair tickets likely included other surcharges.

   • Fixed.

   • "After the fair, the monorail operated with a reduced schedule, from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., using one train over the winter months as it averaged 1,200 daily passengers." – The causal relationship, if any, is not clear. This could be read as the monorail operating on a reduced schedule while averaging 1.2k passengers a day, or doing so because it averaged 1.2k passangers a day.

   • Fixed.

   • "The Seattle Transit System remained the operators of the monorail until January 1, 1973, when it was absorbed into the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro Transit), a countywide transit operator." – "operators" should be singular "operator", for agreement with the fact that the STS was one entity.

   • Fixed.

   • "The terminal was reduced in size through the removal of the outer platforms, which were deemed unnecessary for post-fair demand, and the replacement of the roof with a simpler design while monorail operations continued with reduced service during construction." – I think there should be a comma after "simpler design". It's very much analogous to the Oxford comma so it's your call.

   • Reordered the sentence to remove the conflict.

   • "A temporary station that would be used during mall construction to allow the monorail to continue operations." – Fragment, due to the presence of "that".

   • Fixed.

   • "and rely heavily on a federal grant" – Given the structure of the rest of the sentence, I don't think "rely" is in the proper tense, since the grant had not been yet awarded, so it could not be "relied" on yet. It may also be worth considering adding information on why the grant was denied, though that might clutter up the section even more.

   • Fixed with a different phrasing. The source isn't clear on why the grant was denied, but given the era (Reagan and a general distrust of transit), it's somewhat implied.

   • at the suggestion of a city councilmember" – Is this needed? It seems redundant since I would imagine city council members proposed most or all of those options, and as written, this phrase seems to be part of that proposed action rather than specifying how the action was proposed.

   • Removed.

   • "with a temporary one-day use of the new monorail terminal on the third floor before it underwent additional construction" – I don't think this is the best way to phrase it. "use" does not necessarily imply revenue service. It should be phrased in terms of the terminal temporarily opening for that day.

   • Fixed.

   • "with windows from inside the exhibit spaces" – The purpose of this is to mention that the museum has windows facing the track, right? Isn't "inside the exhibit spaces" redundant then? You could say "with windows facing the tracks", or something of that sort.

   • The intent was to highlight that the windows were designed to specifically face the monorail and frame it among the rest of the exhibit. Tweaked a little.

   • "NHL Seattle, the ownership group for the hockey team, also announced that it would purchase a 50 percent stake in ownership of monorail operator Seattle Monorail Services." – "ownership of" seems redundant, as does "monorail operator" (as it's been mentioned many times that SMS is the operator).

   • Removed.

   • "The fire was determined to have been caused by a snapped drive shaft that damaged a collector shoe and sparked an electrical current after melting its aluminum housing." – this is not technically correct, since one does not "spark" an electric current (a visible spark is a form of electric current in its own right). This reads like a shortcircuit or current leak; I suggest using one of those more formal terms. After all, electric current is essential to normal operation, so it should be underlined what abnormal thing about this current caused the fire.

   • Fixed by sticking closer to the source. The spark did cause the fire, in that it ignited the grease and oil that created visible flames.

   I wish I caught these the first time around, and I had read it twice while making the review. Somehow I just missed these.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

   @Jasper Deng: Round 2 is done. Thanks for being thorough with this review. SounderBruce 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

   Just one more glaring issue: "The monorail and Space Needle opened on March 24, 1962, for a public preview a month before the formal beginning of the Century 21 Exposition." – This isn't much, but I think the current comma setup is a little awkward. I'd rephrase it by putting "for a public preview" before "on March 24, 1962", and then "a month before the formal..." then reads as less redundant.

   Otherwise, I think it's ready to pass. I'll do so tomorrow if that issue gets addressed and there are no objections.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

   And done. SounderBruce 03:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

   @SounderBruce: In accordance with my previous comment, I've passed the article. Congratulations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2020 (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.