Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sounder commuter rail/archive2

Sounder commuter rail

Nominator(s): Sounder Bruce 21:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A second attempt to bring this article to FA in time for the 25th anniversary of its maiden journey. This rail system is one of my username's namesakes and one that I take whenever my schedule allows; both spectacular in scenery and a pleasant way to commute. I do not think the article is in need of substantial changes, but some housekeeping has been completed to bring some statistics up to date. I have made some comments at WT:FAC#An increasing scrutiny on the quality of sources used in FACs to explain my objections to some previous comments on sourcing that may be relevant for new reviewers. Sounder Bruce 21:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A courtesy ping for those who participated in the prior review: ChrisTheDude, Nick-D, Noleander, Hog Farm, UndercoverClassicist, RoySmith. Sounder Bruce 21:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

Thank you for the ping, but unfortunately I don't see how this is substantially different from the previous nomination. My objection there was to the sourcing and it is substantially the same now as it was then:

 88 publisher=Sound Transit 
 52 work=The News Tribune 
 36 work=Seattle Post-Intelligencer
 29 work=The Seattle Times 
 23 work=The Everett Herald 
 22 work=The Seattle Times

I understand that you disagree with my assessment, so I won't belabor the issue. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I will once again question why "local" sources from professional news organizations (some of which are Pulitzer winners) aren't in line with the FACR. There is no prohibition of them, and these can be considered high quality for the areas they cover (local and regional news), much more so than the out-of-state examples given in the last review that had some obvious factual errors. It is unreasonable to expect a niche topic such as local infrastructure to have the same array of available sources as a broad topic, and frankly it goes against the spirit of the FA process to close it off to only a select few areas with wide academic appeal.

As for the use of Sound Transit sources, primary sources are also not prohibited in the criteria and their use is sanctioned within reason under site guidelines. I can respond to specific examples in the article that may need a look and address those concerns where appropriate, but just being given a list with no specific direction is not productive. Throwing out all 88 sources is also not possible unless we want to have an article that is out-of-date and lacks relevant information. Sounder Bruce 22:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much has already been written on this so I'm hesitant to go down this path again, but you asked so I feel obligated to respond. My primary concern is the self-published sources (i.e. what Sound Transit is saying about itself). It's OK to use some material from Sound Transit to source basic facts, but when the majority of the sourcing is from the company itself, that's a red flag or to use your term, not "within reason". That the rest of the coverage is local isn't wonderful, but by itself would not be fatal. RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know which specific Sound Transit sources are problematic and would be against the FA criteria or other site policies. Of the 88 listed sources: 17 are simply used for annual ridership figures; 2 are annual reports and development plans with basic specifications and other facts; and 6 are schedules, rider guides, and explanatory webpages on policies. None of these are being used to cite remotely controversial passages, nor do they require any analysis. Sounder Bruce 05:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

I supported this article during its prior FA nomination two months ago at WP:Featured_article_candidates/Sounder_commuter_rail/archive1#Support_Comments_from_Noleander. According to the edit history, the article has undergone some minor revisions (some sources, some statistics) but not much.
I was unaware that the article had not passed the first FA nomination. I read thru the comments in the first nomination (the ones that sort of sunk the FA approval); and I also read the discussion about sourcing in general at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#An_increasing_scrutiny_on_the_quality_of_sources_used_in_FACs; and I also read User:Roy Smith's comments immediately above here in Nom #2. The issues raised (for two distinct FA nomination, both on mass transit topics) were:

Articles should reduce their reliance on local, small-scale news outlets (i.e. strive more to find larger, more independent news sources)
Articles should reduce their reliance on primary-source publications of the agency that runs the mass transit system (i.e. strive to find independent or secondary sources)

Both of the points above are laudable goals; and it looks like the discussions covered some very important, yet subtle, concerns. After looking at the article again, I am prepared to Support it a second time. The nature of the Sounder Rail is that it is not going to get lots of outside or 2ndary coverage; and likewise the primary sources are going to be the only source for lots of facts and figures. This is precisely the kind of article where primary and local sources are okay (for some material).
But before posting a "Support" here for this 2nd nomination, due diligence requires me to gather a bit more info to make sure I have a full understanding of where we are now. Questions for nominator: During the discussions about the sources (in FA nomination 1, or in the FA Talk page) did anyone point out some non-local sources or non-primary sources that could be used for the article? Did you incorporate any of those sources? Why or why not? Did you yourself discover any additional (after June 2025) non-local or secondary sources for the article? Noleander (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Noleander: Thank you for returning to this nomination. RoySmith did point out a handful of potentially usable non-local sources, but most were 20+ years old and largely contained out-of-date information that, in my view, does not serve the reader better than citing The Seattle Times or The News Tribune. As for the primary sources, there was no alternative offered, and the removal of such sources would mean cutting a substantial amount of content that would lead to a less comprehensive and complete understanding of the topic. I am working on integrating the research paper (included in "Back to the Future"), but quite a few pages are missing from the Google preview and the only library with a copy has limited hours. I have also sought other non-local sources, but have none that are of the same quality or better than those already used in the article. Sounder Bruce 05:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Based on a read-through of the article today; plus the GA review I did several months ago; plus the FA review I did two months ago; plus a reading of the recent discussion(s) about primary & local sources. Noleander (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

I think you should reconsider excluding Back to the Future. Graduate students publish all the time in scholarly journals and stuff so I don't really see why this is different? Heartfox (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Heartfox: I am reconsidering and will add information from that source once I have my hands on a physical copy (hopefully in the next week, depending on when the library has open hours for the reference section). Sounder Bruce 05:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Heartfox and Generalissima: Just letting you know that I have added what I can from Back to the Future. Sounder Bruce 01:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC) (signed from aboard the N Line)[reply]

Nick-D

I supported this nomination previously, and am pleased to support this nomination. I've read Roy's comments in the previous nomination and above, and I think that - to be frank - they're entirely wrong headed. The Seattle-region news sources are reliable and include some well known newspapers, so I can't see any problem with using them. The primary sources have been used appropriately, with a good range of resources being used. Roy's comparison to the Singapore media and government sources is fundamentally invalid: Singapore does not have freedom of the press and its government institutions are not as transparent and trustworthy as those in actual democracies, so it's like chalk and cheese. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

Looked through the prose throughout the article. It's in good shape. Only the mildest of quibbles:

In 2024, the system carried a total of 1.9 million passengers, or an average of 7,300 on weekdays. Does this not include the aforementioned weekend special trips?
- The figure does not include weekend ridership, which is counted separately by the Federal Transit Administration.
Lines section is good.
The two lines carried a total of 1.92 million passengers in 2024 might be important to contextualize this here with the fact that the vast majority of traffic is on the S Line; in fact, it might be a big enough disparity to note in the lede as well. (I know this gets brought up in the Ridership section, so it should just be brief mentions outside of that.)
- Added.
Stations good. Why is welcome mat in quotes?
- Clarified that they are called welcome mats but are not literally mats.
Service and operations quite good.
Rolling stock and future expansion also good.

Re: the sources, I honestly don't understand what the problem is. It obviously meets notability, so citing very reputable papers like the Seattle Times and the PI is fine. Like is the New York Times really going to run articles on Seattle transit; cmon. Out of diligence I checked Google Scholar and I could only really find brief mentions of it when commuter rail in the US in general was being described. Back to the Future did come up while searching, and I would highly agree with Heartfox above that you should add it back to the article; it seems to be the closest thing to proper academic coverage of the topic, and if FAs are supposed to incorporate a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, it seems pertinent to incorporate it. That's all from me, SounderBruce! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thanks for the review. I will be integrating the "Back to the Future" source once I have access. Sounder Bruce 05:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Changes look good to me, and thank you for incorporating Back to the Future! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

I'll jump on this one over the weekend..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I supported last time and see no reason not to do so again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]