Talk:University Street station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Location
 * "The area surrounding the station consisting primarily of ... providing 102,194 jobs and housing a population of ..." I believe consisting should be consists.
 * ✅ Fixed.
 * History
 * no concerns
 * Station layout
 * "...architectural elements were used ... to create the desired atmosphere in the station include linear stainless steel light fixtures over..." There's a verb problem here. I think station, including might be the easiest fix. elements used is another. I have no preference for either, and wouldn't oppose a third option if you like something different.
 * ✅ Fixed.
 * "...design by architect Mark Spitzer..." Spitzer was mentioned in the paragraph above this one. Architect Mark isn't needed twice.
 * ✅ Fixed.  Sounder Bruce  01:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Services
 * no concern
 * Lead
 * Ok for GA standards, but you may consider adding a line mentioning that it's decorated with public art. The subsection is quite detailed, but not referenced in the lead at all.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * 35 of the 65 citations are from one source (The Seattle Times), but they are different articles with different writers over time. Due to nature of the subject, the localized sourcing is not a surprise or a concern.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern - strongest earwig results are common phrases.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * still being actively improved by multiple editors, but no edit-warring or vandalism.
 * 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:
 * no concern - all images are free-use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no concern
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nice work. Thanks for the quick responses. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)