Talk:First Hill Streetcar/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 23:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I have made several copy edits to the article, mostly for sentence structure. Please review and revise anything I screwed up.
 * Thanks for the copyedits. I did go back and change a few of your tweaks just to match what I remember from the sources.
 * The lead is a little short, but passable. Nothing vital is missing.
 * "an onboard electric battery" - I'm almost certain electric is redundant, but the possibility of a technical distinction means I've leaving it for you to decide.
 * I've decided to remove it.
 * According to local improvement district, the term is specific to Canada. I'll let you decide if it should stay linked.
 * I will change the redirect to a description of the American version, which is in use by several states.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * no concern
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * There's a citation request at the end of the Stations subsection that needs to be addressed in some manner.
 * I've hidden the sentence until I can find a suitable source. It's well documented in physical form, but that's not citeable.
 * The claim that Metro refers to the line as Route 96 is not supported by the citation given.
 * I will have to look for a source that has that claim, but I thought I had added it before.
 * Since it's just a minor claim, I've hidden it for now.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * ear wig raises no concern.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no concern
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thanks for picking this article up for review. I've answered your concerns above, with the exception of the missing citations.  Sounder Bruce  07:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With the two uncited claims hidden, I'm comfortable passing this. Nice work, as usual! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)