Talk:South Bellevue 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

Nominator: SounderBruce (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SounderBruce: I will be reviewing this for you! Grk1011 (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

The table will be updated as the review progresses:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Would recommend adding another photo

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox and lead

• ok

Location

• I would suggest mentioning whose 2013 data you're referring to
  • Added.
• "City government" used twice. Suggest changing one to "Bellevue" or "city officials"
  • Fixed.
• Ref 2 (from 2016) talks about mitigation strategies, but the use in the article has a "coming soon" vibe. A more up to date ref should be included to indicate whether some of these aspects are actually being implemented or if they were just studied and recommended. It's been over 8 years since that was published and we know how governments work!
  • A more recent plan has not been published, to my knowledge. Generally, these plans are decided long in advance of the opening and implemented at the time, so there might be more relevant stuff that comes out after the April opening.

History

• This section would benefit from an image of some sort.
  • Added an image and will look around for others; my backlog is in the tens of thousands, so I think I might have something from before construction.
• The jump from the lot having low utilization to 1994 where it had to be expanded is a bit puzzling.
  • Unfortunately, there aren't good sources that describe the exact reason for the jump, but I suspect it has something to do with the expansion of service after the Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge opened.
• "form-traveler gantries" <- a pretty technical term that I'm not sure the average reader will be able to understand. Wikilinks?
  • There is no article on the specific type, so I have linked to the generic gantry crane article instead.
• "outcry" <- suggest something not so pearl-clutching. Maybe "concerns" instead.
  • Changed to "protest", which is used in the source.

Station layout

• ok

Services

• Earlier in the article you were more precise about the opening date.
  • Added with source.
• I'm a bit torn about the ordering of the sections. After reading the Location section, we went back in time with the history before jumping back to the present with "Station layout" and "Services". I checked a few station article FAs and there does not seem to be any set layout for station articles (which I find really surprising!). Think about what the reader is looking for and how they'll read this article. I sort of wanted all the present up front and then the ability to dig deeper if I wanted to.
  • The ordering is meant to push down the "heavier" elements (the station layout table and long services prose) and balance out the page's aesthetics. I do think that providing location context is the first thing that readers would want, while history/services is about even.

References

• Spotchecks
  • Ref 1: no jobs.
  • Ref 8: Accepted as offline source. Title appears relevant.
  • Ref 62: lawsuit info.
  • Ref 89: Covid and strike delay.
  • Ref 95: 2025 full opening estimate
  • Ref 99: 1,500 stalls.
  • Ref 111: Sound Transit and Metro
• Earwig's tool showed 25.9% which is copyright violation unlikely. Mostly just the names of entities.

Discussion

Hi @SounderBruce: Please take a look at the above and let me know if you have any questions! I also did a quick copyedit and found some very minor things. Grk1011 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grk1011: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments and made changes where needed. SounderBruce 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing now. Grk1011 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2024 (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.