Talk:Orenco station (TriMet)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 16:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Article looks good. Just have a couple of questions before I pass this. -- llywrch (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on! Truflip99 (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

First, I will say I found this article full of relevant information. More about the former town of Orenco than the article about the former town itself. And it is well-organized & well-written. Nevertheless, having now read the article & citations carefully, I find I have more than "a couple" questions. Sorry.
 * In the second paragraph of the section "History" there is this sentence "The former town and its vicinity remained rural for decades after, becoming known primarily as a site for illegal dumping." -- Do you have a cite for this? Illegal dumping is a problem everywhere -- I've had 3 cases of it in the alley behind my house in the last 10 years -- but I lived a few miles from Orenco as a kid & I don't remember hearing about this being a notable problem for Orenco. If you can't find a source, leave this out because it isn't really relevant. I suspect you took this from the source I discuss in my next bullet point
 * This is covered by Apalategui, Eric (April 7, 1994). "Hillsboro strikes deal on lots". Hillsboro Argus., the source found after the following sentence. Please let me know if that doesn't suffices and I can remove it. I actually can't find a source in the Oregonian tying illegal dumping to Orenco specifically. Did find some that said it was a problem across Wash Co. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC) ✅ Good. -- llywrch (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the Cascade Policy Institute as a reliable source. I recognize you used this source twice: once to confirm that there had been a number of unsuccessful prior attempts to develop the Orenco area (a fact which is confirmed by a detail in Orenco Woods Nature Park), & to confirm the fact of local resistance to high-density zoning around the station. While it's possible the CPI is right about both points, I would be more comfortable if you didn't use them because I'm iffy about their reliability. CPI is a tiny think tank that barely breaks the surface in Oregon for being newsworthy (yes, Wikipedia has an article about them, but after reading it I suspect it's spam), & if someone from the CPI is quoted in the news (which happens occasionally) it's for political opinion not for their research. To be certain that I was being fair, I looked thru Google to see if my opinion about them was incorrect, & I found two examples of sloppy research.
 * I've replaced the first instance with an Oregonian article and removed the second one. The second instance, which supported an opener sentence, is affirmed by the sources in the sentences that follow. Please let me know if this works. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC) ✅ Good. -- llywrch (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph in the section "History" relies on a citation to a Federal Transit Administration Impact statement, & has a URL to what appears to be the actual document. However, I could not find the pages "P-1 - P-5" in the document linked. Did you mistype the relevant pages? Or is this the wrong document? (To be fair, I remember that extending the Light Rail to Hillsboro was not in the original plan, so the problem is with the citation, not the fact.)
 * If you go to the document's table of contents, and click PREFACE, that's the section being referred to. Both Google and the doc call it "P-1...P-5". --Truflip99 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC) ✅ Found them now. I was thrown because those pages aren't included in the table of contents. -- llywrch (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Concerning your cites from The Oregonian. Sometimes you provide links to the Oregonlive websites, & sometimes you don't. Any hopes of finding URLs for all of the articles?
 * Unfortunately, most Oregonian articles prior to the 2000s are archived and can only be accessed with a local library subscription. I try to link as many of those that are still available online/got web archived. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC) ✅ Acceptible. -- llywrch (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To repeat myself, this article otherwise meets the GA criteria. Address these 4 points, & I'll be happy to promote it. -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * : thank you again! Please let me know if you have any more concerns. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pass. Well-written, more than adequately covers the topic, properly referenced, is stable, & has relevant illustrations. Congratulations! -- llywrch (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)