Talk:Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a WP:GA Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (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:
 * The contract for tunneling and station construction was awarded to JCM Northlink LLC, a joint venture of Jay Dee, Coluccio, and Michels, for $462 million in 2013.
 * The sentence is somewhat confusing. I think the wording/punctuation should be adjusted to something along the lines of "...awarded to JCM Northland LLC (a joint venture of the Jay Dee, Coluccio, and Michels companies) for $462 million in 2013."
 * One of the buildings that was demolished is referred to as both "Standard Records" and as "Standard Radio"...which is right?
 * These issues have been fixed to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * Date-styles agree with each other, references-citations are in agreement with each other. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Scrupulously researched. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool - looks good. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Nice that it included some of the community input that changed the height requirements of the new buildings/new development. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Very stable. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * That image of the Tunnel-boring machine is amazing. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doing some more Proofreading-readthroughs to see if I've missed anything - looking good so far. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the two concerns you raised in the "well written" section. Thanks for spotting them both.  Sounder Bruce  22:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll do at least one more readthrough and should be able to finish up within a day or so. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice little article, gave the facts about the construction plus historic background and some human interest. Going forward the only improvements I can think of is to keep the article updated as the construction progresses, especially images and information about the station when it is closer to completion. Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doing some more Proofreading-readthroughs to see if I've missed anything - looking good so far. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the two concerns you raised in the "well written" section. Thanks for spotting them both.  Sounder Bruce  22:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll do at least one more readthrough and should be able to finish up within a day or so. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice little article, gave the facts about the construction plus historic background and some human interest. Going forward the only improvements I can think of is to keep the article updated as the construction progresses, especially images and information about the station when it is closer to completion. Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)