Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Washington station/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2018 [1].


University of Washington station edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a glass box in front of a football stadium that tens of thousands of people enter in order to descend 100 feet and board a train. In other words, a pretty standard train station, though one that had a long and complex planning process that preceded its construction. This article recently passed GA and went through a GOCE cleanup and I feel it's ready to join Seattle's other glass box as an FA. SounderBruce 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: This nomination is part of the ongoing WikiCup competition. SounderBruce 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Ref 14: Check the page, given here as "p. 2-2" – single page or mistyped range?
    • The reference is on page "2-2" (section 2, page 2). I use endashes and the pp. parameter for multi-page citations.
      • Maybe a "2:2" format would be less confusing, but I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have decided to replace the citation entirely, since I recently found the original document with that specific map. SounderBruce 02:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35: I'm not sure how this untitled source supports the statement cited to it: "The FTA rejected the mid-block crosswalk and a compromise pedestrian overpass connecting to the center of the Montlake Triangle from Rainier Vista was adopted in 2011."
    • The first part (about the FTA rejection) is supported by page 5 of Ref 35 (the PDF), which states the following: "Spring 2010 – at-grade crossings not approved by FTA;".
  • Ref 58, also 77: I was denied access to these Seattle Times sources as I had apparently "reached my limit of free articles". Curiosly, I was allowed access to 60, 66, 67 and 81.
    • The older articles (community.seattletimes) are not behind the paywall that newer articles are. You can load them into incognito mode to bypass the paywall.

Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability and in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review. I've answered your questions above. SounderBruce 23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images review edit

Not all images appear to have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added ALT text for the pictogram. Only remaining ones without ALT text are portal icons. SounderBruce 06:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I don't think anyone has reviewed the prose yet. So I will have a try.

  • the terminus of the Central Link line, which continues south towards Capitol Hill station and Downtown Seattle - This is weird because usually, terminus means end. But in railway terminology, this is fine although it's grammatically awkward. I suggest clarifying that this is the northern terminus. Anyway, you'll need to update this when the Central Link Northgate Extension opens, so maybe this is kind of minor.
    • Tweaked a bit.
  • University of Washington station; Capitol Hill and University of Washington stations - doesn't the definite article "the" come before this phrase?
    • The station itself doesn't need the definite article, and sounds a bit awkward with it.
  • To the northwest is University of Washington campus - also needs a definite article.
    • Done.
  • rejected 1911 comprehensive plan for Seattle - this could be worded into "rejected comprehensive plan for Seattle in 1911" or something similar.
    • Done.
  • after it received construction bids that were $171 million higher than expected - I'm assuming that the soil was the cause of the high cost. Is that correct?
    • Yes, and I have added a second factor to that sentence.
  • The alternatives were narrowed to two finalists in early 2002; - the semicolon at the end should be a colon.
    • Done.
  • By the end of the year, the station was averaging 9,300 daily boardings, placing it second among Link stations for ridership. - I'm interested as to what the first station is.
    • Added.
  • downtown transit tunnel - this should link to Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel.
    • Done.
  • the planned "U District" station to the west of the campus, which was scheduled to open in 2021 - with this phrasing, it sounds like U District won't open at all.
    • Fixed.
  • Station layout - so is the Northgate-bound track not in service?
    • It is in service, as trains layover and leave from both sides of the platform (with signs directing people towards the next train to leave). I switched it so both tracks are labeled as southbound ones.
  • The colors of the walls drew criticism from fans of the Huskies football team because they were similar to the neon yellow that was later adopted by rivals Oregon - the end of the sentence is awkward. What about "Oregon, the rival team" or something similar?
    • Done.

Otherwise, seems like a very good article. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. I have gone through and made the changes you suggested. SounderBruce 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Looks good. I think I'll support this nomination. I might come back with further comments later, but I think everything is OK for now. epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Looking over it now...

  • The station area is within a short driving distance of the University Village shopping center and Seattle Children's Hospital - need to be more specific. I mean, SF to LA is "short" compared with SF to NY....
    • Added distances based on a map reference. Couldn't find any text sources listing out how far the two are from the station.
  • ...due to a competitive labor market and unexpected soil conditions found during testing that would require a deeper tunnel - reads oddly as you have a noun and verbal construction. it would flow better with something like "due to a competitive labor market and underground testing that indicated a deeper tunnel was needed" - come to think of it, anything more on the soil conditions?
    • Fixed.
  • The alternatives were narrowed to two finalists in early 2002 - finalists?? why not just "options" or "routes"....
    • Changed to "options".

Otherwise looks on track prose- and comprehensivenesswise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your three points. SounderBruce 04:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

  • The University of Washington has long-term plans to redevelop its parking lots along Montlake Boulevard into additional office and classroom space, due to their proximity to the station: I don't see support for this in the given source; can you point me at the right paragraph?
    • The plan is listed under the "East Campus" section, with the graphic showing its proximity to UW Station. I have removed the last phrase, since it isn't directly supported.
      OK; that was what was bothering me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sequence of sections seems odd; wouldn't it be more natural to have the station layout and services before the history and future plans?
    • @Mike Christie: The sections are made to match other station articles, so I'm hesitant to change the order. I would rather have the Station layout after the history, since it describes the final design and would be a natural successor to the history section; in the same vein, the Services section describes current schedule and would complement the history section once it is expanded to include former service patterns (come 2021 and beyond). I would be willing to move the future plans section after the Services section, since it only describes changes to the service patterns. SounderBruce 21:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll strike this, since the sequence isn't wrong, but I suspect that this organization will seem less natural in ten or fifteen years, when the planning and construction phase is a distant memory. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is very clean; I can't find a single comma to copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The one issue I had is minor and a matter of opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/University_of_Washington_station/archive1&oldid=830457149"