Talk:MAX Light Rail/GA1

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

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 12:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I will be taking this review. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments
The article is very nicely done and at first glance easily passes all 6 GA criterion, but there are a few issues that have caught my eye.


 * 'frequent headways of 15 minutes, 30 minutes off-peak' it would be better if you could clarify if the headway is 15 to/or/and 30 minutes, and if it is 30 minutes I don't think that can be called frequent for a light rail system.
 * Reworded to make it simpler.
 * In the last paragraph of the lead 'consists' links to 'Train'. To avoid confusion i suggest using train thought the article as '2 car trains' is a lot more common than '2 car consists'.
 * "consist" is the correct American English term for "train". This is mentioned in that article, Train.
 * The description of what MAX defines a line as could be put in a note.
 * I simply followed the example of New York City Subway (GA article) which also explains this weird thing the US does with its train routes. I think the situation is unique enough to warrant an explanation in the prose for non-American readers so they aren't led to assume any incorrect information.
 * There is a Portland Streetcar system also, and i feel like there should be a template at the start of both articles to differentiate between the two.
 * Done.
 * I cant find mentions of a depot in the article, unless the maintenance facilities double up as a depot
 * Yes, those are the depots.
 * The image caption for Washington park station should also mention below the ground.
 * Missed this. Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned that the mall station is permanently closed and Kings hill station is temporarily closed as of now, but in the infobox it only says 1 station is temporarily closed
 * That's correct. Kings Hill station is the only one that's temporarily closed.
 * Then it should say something to the like of '94 (1 permanently closed, 1 temporarily closed)'.
 * Prior to March, it was 97. I just subtracted all three closures but mentioned the one temporary as it may open again. Does it not make sense? -Truflip99 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah i see, ok then.

Hold
Just a few issues to be fixed before I pass the article. Putting it on hold now. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 06:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking this on so quickly. I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if you require anything else. :) --Truflip99 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All but one of the issues have been resolved, but it is a relatively minor one so i will proceed to pass the article first. Nice job with the article! 1.02 editor (T/C) 07:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)