Talk:South Bellevue station

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that drivers using the South Bellevue bus station often parked illegally on fire lanes and grass? Source: The Seattle Times, September 9, 1999
  • ALT1: ... that indoor-rated tactile edge markers were installed outdoors at South Bellevue station and had to be removed? Source: The Seattle Times
  • ALT2: ... that a plan to increase parking capacity at South Bellevue bus station using narrower stalls was rejected due to the width of modern vehicles? Source: The Seattle Times, October 5, 1999
  • ALT3: ... that completion of South Bellevue station was delayed by over a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a workers' strike? Source: Sound Transit, August 2022
  • Reviewed: Gallery (New Orleans)

5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 06:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/South Bellevue station; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article is new enough and long enough (5x expanded on Jan 22). The article is also neutrally and well written, appropriately sourced, and appears policy compliant. But, seriously, are we going to enforce our requirement that the hook "should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest"? If so, these proposed hooks don't come close. Logistical and parking enforcement issues at a future suburban light rail station are not likely considered remotely unusual or intriguing to residents of Bellevue let alone to readers with no special interest. Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I do realize there's a subjective element in assessing "unusual or intriguing" to readers without special interest, and I have rarely rejected a hook on this basis (maybe twice in 15 years). Of course, if others truly believe one of the proposed hooks passes muster, or if the intriguing requirement has been deprecated, I can be overruled. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Added an ALT3 and amended ALT1, but the comments above are unnecessarily hostile. While this might not be in your field of interest, I did try to find things that were unusual about the station and could be reliably sourced. There are dozens of other DYKs every month that don't cater to much beyond their subject interest and still run. SounderBruce 03:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• This light rail line has significant local interest, and is part of a long-anticipated extension to the Eastside of Seattle. Plenty of hooks that are mainly of local/regional interest run on DYK. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I became aware of this nomination after an off-wiki message, but my opinions are solely my own and were reached independently. I don't see how the original hook isn't interesting, it seems eyecatching to me at least. I also don't think the relation to the local community is important with regards to a hook's interest, the point here is if it will be interesting to a broad audience or not, which in my opinion I think it does. Note that I am only referring to ALT0 as feel that ALT1 and ALT2 are more specialist, and I'm not too fond of "it's because of COVID" hooks so I am also not a fan of ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no intent to pick on this hook or its nominator (who has undeniably created a well-written and worthwhile article), but there is a general tendency toward not enforcing the interestingness requirement. Some articles (including some well-written articles, like this one) just don't have good hooks, and we should only be submitting our work to DYK if there's a hook that is genuinely unusual or intriguing. The issue isn't whether the light rail line has significant local interest. The issue is whether a hook about parking issues at the former bus station causing people to park illegally (or about a procurement error in installing the wrong tactile edge markers) is unusual or intriguing. There are many establishments in my own city with inadequate parking causing people to park illegally or in fire lanes. That happens all the time and everywhere and is IMO neither unusual or intriguing. But, hey, User:Narutolovehinata5, if you genuinely believe that the alt0 hook about the old bus station causing people to park in a fire lane is "unusual" or "intriguing", feel free to overrule me. Cbl62 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• I appreciate SounderBruce offering up alt3 which I find more interesting than the prior hooks. The double-whammy of covid and a worker strike is sufficiently interesting IMO. Once QPQ is done, I am able to approve. Cbl62 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. While I won't object to ALT3 if it is approved, aren't hooks that basically go "X happened because of COVID" cheap? I remember there being a sentiment on DYK a while back about moving away from "X happened because of COVID" hooks because of oversaturation or at least because it happened so many times it was no longer seen as sufficiently interesting or unusual. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't know about the prior discussion, but the double whammy with the worker strike was enough to get me over the hump. I do think it's more unusual than inadequate parking at the predecessor bus station. Cbl62 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it was a discussion (or at least the case I was thinking about), but rather a specific DYK review. Unfortunately I can no longer remember what it was. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62: QPQ completed and linked above. SounderBruce 02:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Approving alt3 Cbl62 (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: SounderBruce (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SounderBruce: I will be reviewing this for you! Grk1011 (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

The table will be updated as the review progresses:

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Would recommend adding another photo

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox and lead

• ok

Location

• I would suggest mentioning whose 2013 data you're referring to
  • Added.
• "City government" used twice. Suggest changing one to "Bellevue" or "city officials"
  • Fixed.
• Ref 2 (from 2016) talks about mitigation strategies, but the use in the article has a "coming soon" vibe. A more up to date ref should be included to indicate whether some of these aspects are actually being implemented or if they were just studied and recommended. It's been over 8 years since that was published and we know how governments work!
  • A more recent plan has not been published, to my knowledge. Generally, these plans are decided long in advance of the opening and implemented at the time, so there might be more relevant stuff that comes out after the April opening.

History

• This section would benefit from an image of some sort.
  • Added an image and will look around for others; my backlog is in the tens of thousands, so I think I might have something from before construction.
• The jump from the lot having low utilization to 1994 where it had to be expanded is a bit puzzling.
  • Unfortunately, there aren't good sources that describe the exact reason for the jump, but I suspect it has something to do with the expansion of service after the Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge opened.
• "form-traveler gantries" <- a pretty technical term that I'm not sure the average reader will be able to understand. Wikilinks?
  • There is no article on the specific type, so I have linked to the generic gantry crane article instead.
• "outcry" <- suggest something not so pearl-clutching. Maybe "concerns" instead.
  • Changed to "protest", which is used in the source.

Station layout

• ok

Services

• Earlier in the article you were more precise about the opening date.
  • Added with source.
• I'm a bit torn about the ordering of the sections. After reading the Location section, we went back in time with the history before jumping back to the present with "Station layout" and "Services". I checked a few station article FAs and there does not seem to be any set layout for station articles (which I find really surprising!). Think about what the reader is looking for and how they'll read this article. I sort of wanted all the present up front and then the ability to dig deeper if I wanted to.
  • The ordering is meant to push down the "heavier" elements (the station layout table and long services prose) and balance out the page's aesthetics. I do think that providing location context is the first thing that readers would want, while history/services is about even.

References

• Spotchecks
  • Ref 1: no jobs.
  • Ref 8: Accepted as offline source. Title appears relevant.
  • Ref 62: lawsuit info.
  • Ref 89: Covid and strike delay.
  • Ref 95: 2025 full opening estimate
  • Ref 99: 1,500 stalls.
  • Ref 111: Sound Transit and Metro
• Earwig's tool showed 25.9% which is copyright violation unlikely. Mostly just the names of entities.

Discussion

Hi @SounderBruce: Please take a look at the above and let me know if you have any questions! I also did a quick copyedit and found some very minor things. Grk1011 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grk1011: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments and made changes where needed. SounderBruce 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing now. Grk1011 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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.