Talk:Metro A Line (Minnesota)/GA1

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

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to review this GA over the coming week. I would like to complete this review before midnight (UTC) on October 31st as part of the GAN backlog drive. Thank you for your work so far on this article. MSG17 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Prose and MOS
The article is quite well written, with engaging prose and good organization. I do have a couple comments:
 * If possible, could you take the refs out of the lead? I feel that ridership info is a great example of something that should be detailed and cited in the body and then summarized in the lead.
 * Done. Eóin (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would recommend clarifying that the six police officers were assigned only to this line as opposed to, say, all METRO buses.
 * Done. Eóin (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Broadness, focus, neutrality, and writing in general
The article is generally comprehensive without going into useless detail, and is quite informative about the route and its features. But, I do have some comments:
 * A lot of the statistical figures are from 2018. Can you look into updating them for 2019 now that most of 2020 has passed?
 * In the same vein, can you get ridership figures for all the stations?
 * In public 2019 ridership stories Metro Transit combined the weekday ridership of the A Line and the C Line. I can cite the annual 2019 A Line ridership but weekday ridership in 2019 hasn't been publicly released. https://www.metrotransit.org/ridership-growing-in-corridors-with-fast-frequent-service. This information may be released in the future and I can keep an eye on that.
 * I will complete the table with the missing entries for the 2019 station ridership. Things are a little complicated with Metro Transit discouraging using aggregate stop-level ridership to calculate route-level ridership. I will try to find a way to clarify that. Eóin (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Good work on addressing my concerns. I have some more comments:


 * Could you add similar data from Line A to the table in the History section? Without that point of comparison, the data conveyed by the table is unnecessary detail. If there is no set of data for Line A that would make a good comparison, I would recommend removing the table.
 * In a similar vein, I have an issue with the statement Previously buses spent around 24% of their time waiting at signals and had a 90.7% on-time performance. How does that compare to the situation now that Line A has been opened? This might have more meaning to a transit expert, but as a layperson I don't understand the significance of these specific statistics, and I don't think most readers would either.
 * I cannot find current data related to the table in the History section. It appears that level of detail is rarely published and the presence of it was just a snapshot available due to a major transit service study. I have removed the table. I think it has some interesting information but there is insufficient context compared to other years and it is more trivia than encyclopedic.
 * I have found a source for on-time performance after opening but cannot find information about current time spent waiting at traffic signals. In terms of what the significance of the statistics is, I think even transit experts would struggle to put the 24% wait time at signals in context, but to the public it's surprising to hear that a bus spends 1/4 of the time at red lights. I don't think many people could appreciate the difference between 20% spent at traffic signals versus 30%, but many people could appreciate that traffic signals form a significant amount of delay for bus travel. I appreciate the insight and review from non transit fans so I welcome continued discussion on whether this is an acceptable solution or the content should be reviewed/removed for a more general audience. Eóin (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, with those changes implemented this article is fit for nomination. I will update the necessary pages. MSG17 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright
All good here. Earwig doesn't detect any problems, and neither do I.

Images and stability
All images are properly tagged with the proper CC license, and are captioned properly. The pictures are representative of the article's topic. There haven't been any edits since the end of August, so stability is not an issue here.

Overall, you've done a great job and I only see some minor problems so far. MSG17 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Because this user has a history of long breaks, I will put this review for 14 days. MSG17 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate your patience. Eóin (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)