Talk:Sound Transit/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 02:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! (Disclosure: this is part of a review swap with the nominator.) I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the prose up until the "Organization" station but need to take a break now; I'll look at the rest as I can. All my concerns look minor and very resolvable so far. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished evaluating all the criteria! I just have two small concerns from the source check that should be addressed, so this article should be good to go soon. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

named "Sound Move", was approved in November 1996. ST began operating -- this confusingly skips over the transition from "Sound Move" to "Sound Transit". Unless "Sound Move" is just the bus service? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved "Sound Move" a bit further; it refers to the ballot measure, rather tan the agency's name at the time.
  - Ah, this is great, much clearer! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14 locomotives for Sounder I wikilinked "locomotive" but I am no train expert, so if it has a more specific meaning in context please retarget the link ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me.
The article is inconsistent about hyphenating "park and ride" ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Harmonized use of "park and ride"
The main "Services" section says there are 319 buses for the Sound Transit Express, but "Sound Transit Express" subsection says 307 buses ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, the sources differ because of some counting oversights. Going with the more consistent one.
The image licenses all check out. Thanks for taking so many of these yourself! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feels a little odd that there is a map of a proposed 1970 route, but no maps of the current routes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking to get this done; my GIS skills are rusty and I don't really think I can whip up a good interactive map, but I can promise it will be added eventually.
  - I don't think it's necessary at the GA level, just wanted to flag it in case there was an easy/obvious solution. Godspeed with the GIS. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like too much info for one sentence, can you break it down? It waned in importance as railroads were constructed around Puget Sound and eventually supplemented by electric streetcar and interurban services that were introduced as early as 1884 and grew in the early 20th century to serve a growing number of passenger commuters ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Pared down and split by a semicolon.
Ditto this one: The regional water quality agency, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), led planning of the network and took over operations of the Seattle Transit System and a suburban company in January 1973 following the approval of King County voters in a September 1972 special election.. Can the special election be cut...? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Pared down and split by a semicolon.
This is a choppy read, with subject & verb so far apart: The surface sections of the route through Rainier Valley, where a more expensive tunnel was rejected, and Tukwila were criticized -- would it be accurate to say "Earlier meetings criticised the surface sections of the route through Rainier Valley and Tukwila, where a more expensive tunnel was rejected due to..." ? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reordered.
There are a few places where I boldly did some streamlining myself. Keep in mind that this is a summary of the whole history of the whole transit system -- it's OK if we gloss over things like Joni Earl being only interim CEO of Sound Transit from Jan to June 2001 before being the permanent CEO. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I couldn't quite keep myself from writing about everything I could; eventually, this will get moved around to the appropriate subarticles as those are expanded and written.
but also eliminated a station on First Hill that was deemed a risk to securing federal funding. -- was having the station a risk, or was eliminating the station deemed a risk? If the latter, this sentence needs revision ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a case of the former, but I tried to make it a bit clearer.
Would a "main article" link for Sound Transit 2 (like the one for Sound Transit 2) be appropriate? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Once the redirect is made into a separate article, I intend to add the link. Sounder Bruce 08:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, makes sense, I hadn't caught that it was just a redirect. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was established under the authority of the Washington State Legislature and governed by Revised Code of Washington chapters 81.104 and 81.112 -- this implies it was governed by those chapters and therefore implies that it's no longer governed by them; change to "and is governed" if that's not accurate? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
The "District and subareas" section is another place where a future version of the article would be improved with a map; I'm really struggling to picture this! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoping to get this done sooner, the map should be a bit simpler than the overall system's. Sounder Bruce 06:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a cite error for #34: "The named reference TDP was invoked but never defined"
I don't see any red flags for sourcing from just looking at the list of cited sources. For a closer source check, I used a random number generator to pick cites 78, 122, 214, 219, 229, 241, 291, 296, 298, and 317 as numbered in this diff.
- Verified without close paraphrasing: 78, 122, 214, 219, 229, 241, 291, 298. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, 317 (""Sound Transit repairs Federal Way murals...") says that STart has spent $54 million from 1998-2023 commissioning art -- this is not the same as having a collection valued at over $54 million, especially if some of the art consists of temporary murals during construction! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig pings a few high similarity scores, but it's just a lot of long organization names; no concerns re: copyvio. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @LEvalyn: Fixed both citation issues. Sounder Bruce 21:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking good, happy to pass this now! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.