Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1 Line (Sound Transit) stations/addition1

Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations (1st supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

Line 1 is a light rail line serving Seattle, Washington, United States, and its surrounding suburbs. It is operated by Sound Transit as part of the Link light rail system and runs 25 miles (40 km) from Northgate in Seattle to the city of SeaTac, passing through the University of Washington campus, Downtown Seattle, the Rainier Valley, the city of Tukwila, and Seattle–Tacoma International Airport. Construction on the system began in 2003 after decades of shelved transit plans and trains began operating from Downtown Seattle to Tukwila in 2009. Since then, the line has been expanded four times; it carried an average of 80,000 daily passengers in 2019 and is slated to be extended to the north, south, and east in the early 2020s.

Three new stations on this line have opened and they have already passed their GANs. After some appropriate updates and restructuring, I feel they're ready to be included in the topic. Sounder Bruce 07:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks like a straightforward addition of new stations to the existing line. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks pretty straightforward to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Routine additions, looks all good to go from here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comments~~ either expand the location section of Northgate station or merge it with another section due to the small size, while I have my doubts regarding the reliability of SDOT Blog on Roosevelt station and Huffington Post contributor on Washington University station is unreliable per WP:RSP. The source Cheasty Greenspace on Columbia city station appears to be a blog-style one, merge the last para of history for Othello station with the above one, plus neither SeaTac/Airport station nor Angle Lake station should have refs for the opening dates in the infoboxes and the usage of SeaTac Blog on the latter seems unreliable. Despite these issues, the topic itself is of my interest; well done on putting such dedicated work into a collection of stations within an area! --K. Peake 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SounderBruce, did you have a chance to address Kyle's comments above? Aza24 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are still appropriate for content at the GA level, especially government blogs (such as SDOT Blog) and prominent local blogs (SeaTac Blog, CHS, WSB) that get republished into the newspaper of record (The Seattle Times). The Huffington Post piece was written by an architecture critic for a normal newspaper, so I don't see it being problematic; it certainly did not come up as problematic in the FAC. These suggestions are far beyond what is required for a GTC, as it should have been brought up in the individual GANs. Sounder Bruce 04:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think trying to improve articles is ever inappropriate for really any venue on Wikipedia, and I have no doubt the suggestions came in good faith. Your rationales re sourcing seem reasonable, and I wonder if Kyle Peake would agree with them. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Things sometimes don't come up in a GAR or FTC because not everything is always spotted in those processes, also I have struck out my comments about the sources because your explanations justify their reliability and you should have posted this earlier to address me. However, what I wrote about the small sizes of the location section and the final part of the history section for two respective articles still stands, as does the problem with refs in infoboxes. --K. Peake 08:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed, but I'm still of the opinion that these "issues" are incredibly minor, and moreover changes to articles in the existing GT should not affect the supplementary nomination. Sounder Bruce 04:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to approve supplemental nomination - GamerPro64 00:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]