Talk:Everett Station

Everett Station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 21, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Buses Low‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 34, 2016

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

Untitled

I removed the "delete article notification" because this article links to other articles and is linked to by other articles. Throwing this article away will break the chain of information making all the information unavailable. I will see if I can find some more information on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.45.139 (talk • contribs) 06:24, June 8, 2006

Requested Move?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think perhaps changing this to simply Everett Station might be a wise idea, especially since that page redirects here anyway. A quick search reveals no other stations that I can find called this...The Artak 08:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for moving the article.The Artak 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Everett Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vincent60030 (talk · contribs) 09:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It is now a good article, but still can be improved.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Although there are minor grammatical errors, the flow is still smooth.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
Good

C. No original research:
No original research was found
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It mentioned about the history and layout of the station together with its services.

B. Focused:
There are no irrelevant topics
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I will give the editor(s) time to add inline citation for the sentence mentioned above. I also recommend the rearrangement of the sections and adding subsection to make it not to look too long. Grammatical errors can also be fixed. Adding a bibliography section is also recommended. Time given: until March 22
I've added the requested citation, which mentions the frequency of mudslides and closures on the line. Unfortunately, it seems that every other citation to The Seattle Times is broken, as their recent website remodel did not include redirecting existing links. I've also added subsections to the Station layout section to divide up the rather large wall of text, but the other sections don't seem to need any rearranging. A bibliography is not necessary, as it is completely optional under the Manual of Style and there are no published works on Everett Station to populate it. Sounder Bruce 04:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Appreciated those edits. For what I have viewed of London Tube Stations' article, they usually place the History section first, followed by station layout and services. Additionally station location is placed on top of the History section. I would recommend you to arrange it in this way and split up the awards subsection into another section but it's optional due to the short length of that subsection. I would also recommend you to add a citation about accessibility if possible (the station is wheelchair accessible) since London tube stations that are step-free have a citation itself. I accept the fact that The Seattle Times' citations are broken and also about not adding a bibliography section. :)I also recommend to divide the services section to two subsections: Train services and bus services or other names of your choice and also for the History section as well if possible. :) Good luck improving the article further as I can see it has a potential to become a featured article. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
As this is not a London Tube or rapid transit station, I used existing Amtrak and intercity train station GAs as a model for the arrangement of sections. Wheelchair accessibility is a given for these newer stations, so it isn't necessary to cite them anywhere but the system/line article. Sounder Bruce 20:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Contradictory information: side or island platform?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the opening paragraph, we read: "It [the station] consists of two side platforms, one serving Amtrak and the other serving Sounder commuter trains."

Yet the infobox reads: "Platforms 1 side platform, 1 island platform"

Which is correct? 69.42.17.116 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It would be the former, but the arrangement is a bit strange. There's the Sounder platform to the west, a single track (for Sounder), then a platform for Amtrak that is not able to board Sounder trains but instead faces out towards the other tracks. Sounder Bruce 06:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way that information can be concisely incorporated into either the text or the infobox (or both)? 69.42.17.116 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's already been corrected. Sounder Bruce 16:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Everett Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic