Talk:Blue Line (Washington Metro)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: --PCB 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   There are several confusing sentences spread throughout the history. There are several spelling errors and the description of lines in the lead is confusing. I suggest that the history be rewritten before it is submitted again for GA. However, some parts of the history were somewhat well-written

   Could you please point out the "confusing sentences"?

   • "Blue Line service travels along the entirety of the J Route (from the terminus at Franconia-Springfield to the C & J junction just south of King Street), part of the C Route (from the C & J junction just south of King Street to Metro Center), part of the D Route (from Metro Center to the D & G Junction just east of Stadium-Armory), and the entire G Route (from the D & G junction past Stadium-Armory to the terminus at Largo Town Center)." What in the world does this mean?
   • "Planning for Metro began with the Mass Transportation Survey in 1955 which attempted to forecast both freeway and mass transit systems sufficient to meet the needs of 1980." I don't see how this makes a lot of sense. - maybe italics on Mass Transportation Survey?

     Uh, no. I thought 1980 was a little tough to understand, considering that it is future. --PCB 04:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

   • "Corngressional route approval was no longer a key consideration." Not only is there a pretty funny spelling error (sorry) but this sentence confuses me and seems to be unencyclopedic. OK
   • "The Blue and Orange Lines remain co-aligned from Rosslyn to Stadium-Armory, and the Silver Line will eventually be co-signed along the same route as well." You didn't specify very well that the silver line is future and just mentioned it. OK
   • There are too many dashes everywhere. OK
   • "From 1999 to 2008, the Blue Line operated to Huntington on July 4, as part of Metro's special Independence Day service pattern." So it only ran on July 4? - Yes, and runs the opposite way to Springfield 364 days a year.
   • "In 1998, Congress changed the name of the Washington National Airport to the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport with the law specifying that no money be spent to implement the name change." Why would you need money to change a name? - $60,000 to change the signs that had the station names.
   • "In response to repeated inquiries from Republican congressmen that the station be renamed, WMATA stated that stations are renamed only at the request of the local jurisdiction." A little POVish. Same with the next sentence. --PCB 04:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some of the references are formatted incorrectly. WMATA is never spelled out throughout the article so it is unclear what it is. An accessdate is needed for the last two references. The dates are inconsistent.

   In addition, footnote 23 is to an unreliable source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I believe the article needs a "Route" section. I believe the list of stations needs to be a wikitable. The future section is too short (2 sentences cannot make a section), even if there is little information about it. All in all, there is really only one big section, which doesn't meet the GA criteria, I don't think.

   So that I can understand your interpretation, in your view, would a station list table comply with WP:MOS, "the use of tables to display lists is discouraged"? I am open minded.

   I assumed this because of its use in Orange Line (Washington Metro). I could be incorrect. --PCB 04:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I noticed you made only three edits, although those three edits were quite productive.

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately, I don't think that the article meets the GA criteria at the moment. The article needs quite a bit of work, so I am going to fail it. Once these issues are addressed, I believe that the article may be resubmitted.

Thank you for taking the time to do the review. I have a few questions and would appreciate you giving me a few more specifics. Racepacket (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the article has been failed, and I can not change my decision. You will have to renominate it. --PCB 04:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct, your input helps before I rewrite and submit the changes for review and posting to article space. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)