Talk:Pioneer Square South and Pioneer Square North stations/GA1

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

Reviewer: Username6892 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead
The lead seems long for the size of the article (1b) See comment below.

The history of the square itself (Whether or not undue weight in the prose is given) should be mentioned in the lead. I'd recommend trimming the lead given that it is a bit long for the size of the article (not too long, but I think it's barely short enough). (1b)

History
The Portland city block bound by Southwest Morrison and Yamhill streets to the north and south, and 6th Avenue and Broadway to the east and west had previously been occupied by various structures, including a school, a hotel, and a parking garage. In March 1856, a proclamation created School District No. 1, which built the city's first permanent public school at this location.[2] Ref 2 doesn't mention any buildings besides the school nor does it mention the streets or the date of the proclamation.
 * Thanks for taking the review! It's a topic sentence, but I've added a ref that covers all of it. --truflip99 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Should ref 6 have a page number? (I don't think this is required) Ref 6 should have a page number (2b)

I've asked for a second opinion on the GAN talk page regarding whether the article gives undue weight to the history of the square rather than the station itself. (3b)

Station details
Amenities include garbage cans, shelters, and schedule information displays Is this information needed? Seems trivial. It isn't backed up by the source. (2c, 3b)

Overall
I will ask for a second opinion because: --Username6892 18:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The history section may give undue weight to the pre-station history (First 2 paragraphs)
 * 2) To make sure I have done this review well enough
 * I actually agree with you regarding the undue weight, so I went ahead and trimmed it. Thanks! --truflip99 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion
I noticed your request for a second opinion. I presume the undue weight issue is resolved, since Truflip99 has trimmed it down based on your assessment. Apart from that, I have read the article through, and it appears to be well written and well referenced. It follows the layout that a lot of US rail articles do, so there is evidence of good practice. As a reviewer, you are not trying to find fault with the article, but to assist the nominator in making sure it meets the good article criteria, and it is a win for both of you if it does.

My main comment on the review would be that you have used the review progress box, and there are two items marked as unsatisfactory. I presume the Manual of Style issue is the undue weight. I am not sure why the Original Research one has not been ticked off. Original Research is when the author uses more than one source, and draws conclusions that are not merited by any of them individually, or draws conclusions from a single source which are not stated in the source, and could be deemed to be personal opinion. I cannot see that there is any subject matter in the article that falls into that category, and it is usually quite difficult to find this sort of thing if the article is properly referenced. I am presuming that you have checked the references, because of your note on ref 2. I would agree that ref 6 needs a page number, since it contains 99 pages.

So well done Truflip99 on writing the article well, and Username6892 on reviewing it constructively, and if I was the reviewer, I would be happy to award it GA status once ref 6 is fixed. I hope this helps. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've put lack of verifiability (the sentence having no source) under OR probably due to the fact that the article makes a conclusion without a source (besides the writer of the article). If it's not please let me know. I put the trivial details under OR because they weren't sourced (though they should probably be removed either way per 3b).  Username 6892 23:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I am putting this on hold until June 5th.  Username 6892 23:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Resolved the ref issue accordingly. Thank you, both. --truflip99 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should mention the content from the first history paragraph in at least one sentence of the lead.  Username 6892 00:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think that's necessary if that's okay with you. --truflip99 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that both of you seem to disagree, I'm getting the feeling that this is my own stylistic preference given that both editors are more experienced. Passing.  Username 6892 02:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)