Talk:Everett Station/GA1

GA Review
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)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria It is now a good article, but still can be improved.
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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
 * 1) 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
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)