Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MAX Orange Line/archive1

MAX Orange Line

 * Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review hoping to make it the third MAX Light Rail-related article to achieve FA after the Red Line and the Yellow Line. Hoping the process is a little smoother this time using the two FAs as models. The Orange Line is Portland's newest MAX extension, having opened in 2015. Its was built following two decades of failed attempts to expand light rail between Portland and Clackamas County. Part of the project saw the construction of Portland's newest Willamette River crossing, Tilikum Bridge, which is notably the country's first major "car-free" bridge (it only allows peds, bikes, and transit). This article has been extensively copy edited and reviewed and would make a great addition to WP's FAs. truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops completely screwed up that nom. Fixing! Thanks, ! - truflip99 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No prob .. I have moved this malformed nomination from WP:FAR to WP:FAC, and hopefully corrected all the pieces, including on article talk.  will need to make sure I got everything and that FACbot won't be foiled.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * Images appear to be freely licensed
 * Stations image bar displays badly along with table (depending on configuration) for some readers. I would use just one station image, or if multiple are absolutely necessary, then use a horizontal gallery. Multiple images is also suboptimal in that it doesn't scale for the reader preference. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks for the image review! --truflip99 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review
 * Add alt text to all of the images.
 * Done
 * The tables need row and column scopes, row headers, and captions per MOS:DTAB. To keep the same visual appearance, add "plainrowheaders" next to wikitable sortable.
 * Partly done; upon previewing plainrowheaders it doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions?
 * I believe the line transfers coloured circles should have an alt attribute or be accompanied by text (like Amtrak/Greyhound); not just colour/symbol only.
 * Convert the dagger symbol to Template:Dagger and add alt text.
 * Done
 * Convert the down arrow to Template:Down-arrow and add alt text. Heartfox (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Thanks for the accessibility review, . I've addressed all but one, which I'll need more time for. --truflip99 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can add the row headers (!) and keep the same colour with style="background-color:#F8F9FA" I believe. The key table also needs scopes/row headers. You haven't added yet. Heartfox (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just used the subst template suggested in the down-arrow template page, and when you save it it reverts to the icon only (shrug). --truflip99 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review, and reserving a place. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of dup links. Are they intentional?
 * I only typically do this for links that are created by templates. Could you provide an example? --truflip99 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume Gog is talking about Milwaukie/Main Street station and Southeast Park Avenue station. In the future, you could install something like User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js to find these. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the one on lead, one on prose, and one on the table -- then yes, they are intentional. But... are they incorrect..? Never mind, found and omitted. --truflip99 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Caption: "Most southbound Yellow Line trains switch to Orange Line service at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Gilsan". Suggest 'Union Station/Northwest 5th & Gilsan where most southbound Yellow Line trains switch to Orange Line service' so readers are told what they are looking at first.
 * Done


 * "and runs southbound only within downtown Portland". Is "only" needed?
 * Omitted


 * "From there". From where?
 * Clarified


 * "it operates". Is this USvar? It makes no sense in ENGvar - it describes the line itself operating a distance(?)
 * Reworded


 * "The line serves 17 stations between Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan and Southeast Park Avenue". The way you have described it, the 17 stations are exclusive of Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan and Southeast Park Avenue. Is this correct?
 * Reworded


 * "This MAX extension". Does "this" refer to the second or first phase? (Or both?)
 * Clarified


 * "Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station". Should "station" not have an upper case S? And in other similar cases?
 * WP articles for transit stations in the west lowercase "station" as it is often not part of the formal name/train announcement.


 * What is a "transit mall alignment"?
 * Reworded as "transit mall tracks"


 * What does "through-operates into" mean?
 * Through train, rail term that means a train changes name mid-operation


 * There should not be information in the infobox which is not in the main article.
 * This article is a child of the parent MAX Light Rail; I moved the stock param to the main, but I think some of the technical params are quintessential items that railfans look for. These params do not necessarily need to be expanded upon in the body of a child article, since they the same across all other lines for American light rail systems. The same cannot be said for other transit systems in other countries however.
 * My US Eng is usually passable, but I don't understand most of that. Is it in RAILvar? ;-) Regardless, the MOS requires that anything in the infobox needs to also be in the main article. Is this now the case?
 * Yes, omitted.


 * History
 * Should "Columbia Region Association of Governments" be linked to Metro (Oregon regional government)?
 * Done


 * "ultimately built with light rail". This reads oddly. Especially to non-US eyes. I assume it was built with cement and steel. Possibly rephrase?
 * Reworded


 * "regional government Metro". I don't think this is grammatical. 'The regional government, known as Metro, ...' or similar?
 * Omitted


 * "as well as proposed a conversion". "proposed" → 'proposing'.
 * Reworded differently


 * "Noting federal funds could only be spent on one light rail project at a time, Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) made the I-205 line its next priority after the westside line due to the existing I-205 Transitway right-of-way and the McLoughlin Boulevard line its third priority." This sentence is covering a lot of ground. Consider splitting.
 * Split


 * "Clackamas County officials went on to dispute the federal money." A little more detail here would be helpful.
 * Expanded


 * "Metro released an official regional transportation plan". Is "official" necessary?
 * Omitted


 * "and in September 1989, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield and Washington Senator Brock Adams, who were members". Why the commas?
 * Introductory clause for the first one; nonrestrictive clause for the second (and third) one
 * My bad - comma after introductory time period. Those look so odd to me that I just didn't realise that that was what it was. Apologies.


 * "which TriMet officially called the "South/North Line"." Is "officially" needed?
 * Reworded to "formally"


 * " "nearly two-thirds" " I see no need to put this in scare quotes.
 * Omitted


 * "Three months later, 69 percent of voters in Clark County rejected increases" I think you need to briefly introduce the concept of local plebiscites in the US here.
 * How so? I don't see any more to it other than they voted and said no..
 * The concept of an electorate voting on a specific and detailed proposal such as this is alien to most of the democratic English-speaking world. Most of it elects politicians to make those decisions. Hence a word or two explaining that things are different there will be a great enlightenment for many readers.
 * I've rewritten it, hopefully to better explain that the proposed funding sources for the project in question needed voter approval (not the project itself). I can't speak for similar projects in other parts of the US, however, so I will refrain from generalizing local plebiscites in the US.
 * That works nicely, IMO.


 * "69 percent of voters" or '69 percent of those who voted'?
 * Done


 * "Planning for the South/North Line later resumed when TriMet released". Is "later" necessary?
 * Omitted


 * "scaled back the line's northern half to the Rose Quarter". In what way was it scaled back?
 * by "eliminating its North Portland and Clark County segments"; reworded a bit


 * "and narrowly rejected it by 52 percent". One of "narrowly" or "by 52 percent" seems redundant to me.
 * Omitted


 * "which evaluated mode alternatives for each corridor." Honestly, I don't know what this is trying to say.
 * Reworded


 * "They later amended the first phase to include an extension of light rail along the Portland Transit Mall when planning for the second phase revealed a fourth service along the existing downtown tracks on Morrison and Yamhill streets, which were already served by the Blue, Red, and Yellow lines, would push that alignment to maximum capacity." This seems an over busy sentence. Split?
 * Done


 * "The LPA also reaffirmed decade-long calls". Optional: consider rephrasing. I am not sure that "reaffirmed" is the best word, and a decade-long call brings an odd mental image to my mind.
 * Reworded


 * "amid the placement of Measure 3-401". What does "placement" mean in this context?
 * Reworded; "placed on the ballot" is a term we often use


 * "a special election ballot". Would it be possible to have an in line explanation of what this is?
 * Beyond the scope of this article, it's when a politician's seat is vacated and needs to be filled
 * Writing the article in generally understood English is not beyond its scope. Either don't use specialist/parochial terms or explain them in line. So an anti-light rail initiative was placed on a ballot to fill a vacant political seat? You what?
 * I've omitted special elections to avoid confusion and did some rewording. But whenever an election occurs in the US, you can include proposed legislation in the ballot.


 * "begin purchasing right-of-way and construction materials". What are "right-of-way ... materials"? Or do you mean 'begin purchasing rights-of-way and construction materials'?
 * Fixed


 * "Construction began later on June 30". Delete "later".
 * Deleted


 * "Right-of-way preparation work". I assume that this is a USvar phrase. Would it be possible to rewrite in a more generally comprehensible way?
 * Reworded


 * "As part of construction" → 'As a part of construction' or 'As part of this construction' or similar.
 * Fixed


 * "safety improvements were made at several street-level crossings in Southeast Portland and Milwaukie, allowing them to be designated quiet zones". This seems vague. Do you mean 'safety improvements were made at several street-level crossings in Southeast Portland and Milwaukie, which allowed them to be designated quiet zones'?
 * Yes


 * "the project had been completed by 50 percent." This is not grammatical.
 * Fixed


 * "18 new Siemens S70 vehicles". Could there be a little more detail as to what these "vehicles" were? I am guessing that my confusion comes from meaning something in USvar which it doesn't to me.
 * light rail vehicles


 * " previously elimiated project elements". ?
 * Whoops


 * "totaling $3.6 million". Do you mean 'at a total cost of $3.6 million'?
 * Done


 * "the first trips with around 500 passengers,". Do you mean that, or should it be 'the first trips, with around 500 passengers,'?
 * Reworded


 * "ran at regular operating speed" → 'ran at the regular operating speed'.
 * I believe 'the' is correct, at least in US Eng.
 * I believe 'the' is correct too. Does that mean that you are going to include it?
 * Sorry, I meant to say incorrect. Saying "the regular operating speed" would suggest that that specific speed was established prior to this phrase, which it wasn't.

I am going to pause here to allow the comments above to be addressed. I also strongly recommend a copy edit of the remaining sections prior to my coming back to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review thus far. I've addressed everything requested and did another CE of the following sections. I had this reviewed by GOCE... not sure what happened there. --truflip99 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at your responses yet, I'll do that once I have finished the rest of the article. GoCE is usually pretty good - but I've copy edited half a million words for them, so I guess that I would say that - but can be patchy, depending on who you get as a copy editor. Still, some of what seems to have been missed is disappointing. I shall try to get the rest done tomorrow, and review your responses by the end of the week. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Route
 * "The Orange Line serves the 7.3-mile-long (11.7 km) Portland–Milwaukie extension. The Orange Line begins farther". "The Orange Line ... The Orange Line". Some variation?
 * Changed


 * "the line enters the Kellogg Bridge". I'm not sure that a line can enter a bridge.
 * Changed


 * Caption: "A geographic map". It may be me, but "geographic" seems redundant; what other type of map might a reader think it is?
 * Just to say it isn't a schematic map as is often associated with transit. But I can get rid of it.
 * Ah. OK. No, that makes sense.

And that would seem to be all. Could you ping me once these last three issues are addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, really appreciate you taking the time. Sorry it took me a minute with your nom as I've been rather busy lately. --truflip99 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. However, the coordinators may be watching the clock so it would be best to keep this moving along. For example, you may wish to prompt Sounder Bruce. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sterling work is addressing my comments. A few responses from me above. If I haven't responded you can assume that I am happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've responded to your responses. --truflip99 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A good and detailed article. Looks to me to meet the criteria. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius
I'll leave some comments soon. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I totally forgot about this. I'll leave comments within a few hours. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead Thanks for remembering! --truflip99 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * second part of the two-phased South Corridor Transportation Project that in its first phase expanded - I suggest something like "second and final phase of the South Corridor Transportation Project, the first phase of which expanded". If there were only two phases, then the phrasing "second part of the two-phased" is unwieldy.
 * Revised
 * From PSU South/Southwest 6th and College station, the Orange Line through operates into the Yellow Line as a northbound service of the transit mall on 6th Avenue, terminating at Expo Center station in North Portland. - It took me a bit to figure out what was going on (even though I understand through services). For this sentence, I would suggest "operates through to" instead of "through operates into". Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it accordingly, but I just took that phrase from the Through train article.

History
 * In 1975, the Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG) proposed a series of "transitway" corridors in the Portland metropolitan area amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region - I suggest moving "amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region" to after "In 1975". Right now, the lack of punctuation is weird. E.g. "In 1975, amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region, the Columbia Region Association of Governments..."
 * Done


 * with the exception of a light rail corridor running from downtown Portland to Oregon City in Clackamas County with a spur line from Milwaukie to Lents, which would occupy the old Portland Traction Company rights-of-way - This sentence is also long and I think this can largely be its own sentence.
 * Done


 * Indecision about the exact use of the transfer money, as requested by the Federal Highway Administration,[7] led to a delay in acquiring the funds - I also suggest using active voice.
 * Done


 * this bus corridor, which would be called the I-205 Transitway, ran physically separate from but parallel to the freeway - Also its own sentence, probably. I'd also rephrase to avoid "separate from but parallel to", which is a clunky wording, e.g. "This bus corridor, which would be called the I-205 Transitway, was a physically separate route running parallel to the freeway." Just out of interest (not required), did it run in the median or elsewhere?
 * Done. It does run in the median along the MAX Red Line segment!


 * Several months before the inauguration of MAX, Metro—the successor to CRAG— - Not required, but when did CRAG get replaced by Metro? I would suggest "CRAG's successor, Metro,..."
 * Expanded


 * proposed converting the partially built I-205 Transitway between Portland International Airport and Clackamas Town Center from a busway into another light rail line - I'd consider splitting this too. It is quite a long sentence.
 * I think it's fine, just a compound sentence.


 * went on to dispute - How come this isn't just "disputed"?
 * Just timeline wording to say that they disputed afterwards


 * and in September 1989, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield and Washington Senator Brock Adams, who were members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, - They seem to be U.S. senators from these respective states, so it would more appropriately be "U.S. Senators Mark Hatfield from Oregon and Brock Adams from Washington". Whereas "Oregon Senator" and "Washington Senator" may seem like it's referring to state senators.
 * Good call


 * Planning for the South/North Line resumed when TriMet released a revision - When did this happen?
 * Clarified


 * revised the package but in November, - comma after "package"
 * Done


 * and it would have terminated another mile north of Lombard Street in Kenton. - This part of the sentence sounds strange. Maybe "so it would terminate another mile north..."
 * Done


 * the TriMet board elected to reaffirm voter support - This is also clunky, if you mean the TriMet board decided to hold another vote on a new draft measure.
 * Reworded


 * In October 2000, the committee narrowed the range of alternatives in a report that outlined building either both light rail lines, a combination of a light rail line and an improved bus service, bus rapid transit, or dedicated bus lanes - This sounds awkward because it seems like this really should be two sentences. "In October 2000, the committee published a report that narrowed the range of alternatives. The report outlined constructing..." Also, "either both" sounds strange, even though it's pretty clear what you're talking about.
 * Reworded


 * a two-part expansion, the second phase of which - This feels a bit repetitive, only because you already mentioned the expansion only has two parts.
 * Reworded


 * While planning for the second phase, analysis showed - This is a dangling modifier, i.e. who was planning?
 * Clarified


 * TriMet designed the new bridge to be "car-free", banning private vehicles and accommodating only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians—the first such major bridge in the country - This also seems a little repetitive, in that if "only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians" could be used on the bridge, you don't need to mention that it's both car-free and that it bans private vehicles. One or the other would suffice, or even neither: "TriMet designed the new bridge to carry only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians—the first such major bridge in the country".
 * Reworded


 * due to Measure 3-401 - Did the measure force the amount to be reduced? Or did TriMet make the decision after seeing the measure proposal?
 * Yes and yes


 * 50-percent completed - I would suggest just "halfway completed".
 * Done


 * these were designated "Type 5" - Should this be before the semicolon? E.g. "The agency purchased 18 new Siemens S70 light rail vehicles, designated "Type 5"; the first car arrived in Portland that September."
 * Done


 * up to $40 million under budget. - This is also a strange sounding wording, because "up" and "under" aren't usually juxtaposed. How about "as much as $40 million under budget"?
 * Used "around"


 * the first train ride, which carried 500 passengers - Usually, trains or scheduled trips carry 500 passengers, not train rides.
 * This is probably to clarify that it was the first train to carry the public along the extension. I changed it to "public train ride".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time, ! Comments addressed. --truflip99 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Route
 * Orange Line service begins farther north of the Portland–Milwaukie segment at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station near Portland Union Station in downtown Portland - I would suggest adding a comma after "farther north of the Portland–Milwaukie segment", since the phrase "at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station ..." is a distinct idea.
 * It is not a distinct idea actually


 * following an intersection with Naito Parkway. - This wording could probably be improved. Does the alignment follow the intersection physically, or does it come after the intersection? I assume it's the latter, but "follow" is usually interpreted as the former when you're talking about alignment.
 * Done


 * The line then crosses the Willamette River on Tilikum Crossing - Do both lines use the bridge?
 * Yes, nice catch


 * the line traverses the Kellogg Bridge, an elevated viaduct that carries it across Kellogg Lake to 22nd Avenue. - "Elevated viaduct" may be unnecessary because this is typically what a bridge is. E.g. "the line traverses the Kellogg Bridge across Kellogg Lake to 22nd Avenue".
 * Done


 * Many stations along the Orange Line have public artwork, erected as part of TriMet's public art program - Usually, at least in my experience, artwork is "commissioned" rather than "erected".
 * I could not think of that word for the life of me. Thank you!


 * as part of a future pilot program to test the Hop Fastpass automated fare collection system - I would move this to immediately after "In 2015". e.g. "In 2015, as part of a future pilot program to test the Hop Fastpass automated fare collection system, TriMet proposed installing turnstiles..."
 * Done

Service
 * which extends up to 30 minutes in the early mornings and late evenings - I would rephrase this, as 30 minutes is considered a decrease in service, even though it is an extension of the headway.
 * Done


 * On a side note, I see there are really only 2 Orange Line night bus trips on weekdays and 1 night bus trip on Saturdays and Sundays. That level of bus service is basically a chartered trip, not even an actual route, which I found funny.
 * That's TriMet for you.

These are all the comments I have. Once these are addressed I will most likely support this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These comments have been addressed. Thanks again, ! --truflip99 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I support this article for promotion as a featured article. I would also like to note that I will claim this review in exchange for points in the WikiCup. Epicgenius (talk)

HF
I'll also take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "It carried an average of 11,500 daily weekday riders in September 2019" - Is this figure just the extension discussed in the sentence before this in the lead, or is it the total ridership for the whole Orange line? Lead implies the former, body and infobox the latter
 * Done
 * "Despite the South/North Line's cancellation, North Portland residents and city business leaders continued to push for light rail." - Earlier in the paragraph, we're told that North Portland residents generally opposed light rail, so the use of "continued" seems odd to me
 * It is not stated that North Portland residents ever opposed light rail, but I did change a word to make it less confusing
 * "In August 2009, the transit mall reopened with light rail service from the newly rerouted Yellow Line.[58] The I-205 MAX extension opened the following month with a new Green Line service." - This appears to be out of chronological order compared to the material surrounding it
 * I have rewritten this to hopefully make it more clear, but this sentence just supports the statement before it, which talks about the first-phase project and the transit mall light rail addition. I deemed it appropriate to put here just to finish talking about it because both phases were planned simultaneously and the first phase is its own topic.
 * "FTA to approve the addition of switch heaters, catenary ice caps" - What's a catenary ice cap? This needs a link or a gloss or something, as its going to be confusing to most readers, including myself.  In fact, the vast majority of hits for "catenary ice caps" in a Google search I attempted to try to find out what this means are from mirrors of this article.  This phrase will be confusing for the vast majority of readers without an explanation of what these things are.
 * I'm going to eliminate that part for now, as it seems to lack notability
 * Link the Yellow Line in the body
 * Interstate MAX and MAX Yellow Line are synonymous, as are I-205 MAX and MAX Green Line. Should I link both?
 * I think the fact that they are equivalent could be made clearer in the article. For instance, I took "which led to the Interstate MAX and Yellow Line opening in 2004" to be referring to two separate things.
 * sorry, I misspoke. They are not synonymous. One is an extension and the other is a service. I try to explain this in MAX Light Rail. I will link both per MOS:RDR.
 * If the Portland State University connection is important enough to be included in the lead, why is it not mentioned in the prose section of the body; just the table?
 * Because the Orange Line only serves the stations at PSU, but those stations were built not as part of this Portland-Milwaukie project, but as part of the first-phase Portland Transit Mall project (which is also covered in MAX Green Line).
 * "The total length of Orange Line service, which includes a segment of the Portland Transit Mall, is undetermined" - I'm not a fan of the use of "undetermined" here. That can mean that they whole length is not known or calculated, while the source just doesn't mention it, which is different than stating that something is "undetermined"
 * Reworded
 * " As of 2020, these plans have not been enacted" - We need another source for this statement. The current source is from 2015 and refers to 2016 and 2017 in the future tense, so it's not going to be useful for what has been done by 2020
 * Added some refs, but had to change it to 2019
 * Do we have a citation for the list of station names?
 * Added
 * "Fewer trains run during weekends" - This seems to be an oversimplification, IMO. Pulling up a current to Milwaukie weekday schedule and a current to Milwaukie Saturday schedule, the difference appears to be two trains in the 7am-8am span, unless I missed something. Two fewer trains in a service of that size doesn't seem to be a particularly large drop, and the un-nuanced "fewer trains run during weekends" would imply a bigger drop.
 * I've simplified it because the schedule gets updated sometimes. But I've gone ahead and removed that sentence.
 * This makes it seem a little significant that the line doesn't link to the Milwaukie bus hub, is that worth mentioning?
 * I've not mentioned it, because TriMet insists that it does
 * We seem to have a comprehensiveness issue: the topic of public art along the line has some coverage such as, . In fact, we even have an entire Category:Sculptures on the MAX Orange Line.  I find it hard to believe that this topic shouldn't be mentioned at all.
 * It was decided a while back that these topics should be covered on the individual stations which house the public art pieces. I will work on that eventually.
 * There still seems to be enough coverage of these that I would at least expect a sentence or two along the lines of "Many of the stations along the MAX Orange Line have public artwork ..." or something like that. Agree a list or full detail is probably undue, but at least some sort of mention seems warranted here. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added this blurb. --truflip99 (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you, I really appreciate it! --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c, and 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

These aren't necessarily part of the FA criteria, but I think these should be cleaned up while we're at it.
 * Bower (sculpture)
 * MAX Gold Line
 * Flooded Data Machine

These are not mentioned in the article. Either they're significant and represent non-comprehensiveness of the article, they're mispointed, or they're just junk, in which case WP:RFD is needed. Hog Farm Talk 05:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These for now have been redirected elsewhere. Although I've never heard of the MAX Gold Line, I'll have to request a deletion for that. --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've sent MAX Gold Line to RFD. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Will conduct one in a bit, seeing as I still have access to the Multnomah Library's online resources.  Sounder Bruce  07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting notes:


 * Ref 16 should mention the University of Portland Library (perhaps using the via= parameter)
 * Ref 21 should link Carl Abbott (urban historian)

Otherwise, the formatting is neat and I don't see anything that jumps out. I will do a spotcheck later today.  Sounder Bruce  19:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It's actually Portland State University for the first one. Anyway, I've addressed both. --truflip99 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SB were you still going to perform a spotcheck? If you could also consider source reliability that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll do both as soon as I'm able to (likely over the weekend if my vaccination side effects aren't too bad).  Sounder Bruce  07:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, the vaccine did have a bit of an effect on me.


 * Source reliability: No issues with The Oregonian, Tribune, Railway Gazette, Trains, The Atlantic, as all are accepted as reliable and high-quality print sources with online mirrors.
 * Primary sources such as TriMet, Metro, and FTA are not overused
 * Ref 21's page number can be moved out of the rp template.
 * Done
 * Ref 61 should link Portland Tribune
 * Done
 * Does Ref 91 cover all that prose in the Stations section? It's a bit of a stretch and I would like to see other sources added here to reduce confusion.
 * Thanks for catching that! Added more refs
 * I recommend combining the Google Maps citations into a single link, as I assume they are mainly being used for their satellite data. It would help cut down on the overlinking as well.
 * Combined to one ref

Spotchecks (per this version): 3, 6, 15, 21, 35, 43, 52, 67, 74, 93, 108, and 113 all match the prose without close paraphrasing. Generally think this is good to go, aside from the issues I raised above.  Sounder Bruce  04:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've addressed all of these. Glad the vaccine ultimately went okay for you (it took me out as well). --truflip99 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Sources now meet the requirements in the FA criteria.  Sounder Bruce  23:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM
Comments soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC) That's it, an excellent article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Station heading southbound" ->" "Station and heads southbound"
 * Done
 * "riders in September 2019" knocking on for two years old now, any update available?
 * Updated
 * What's a "major" bridge?
 * I've reworded this
 * "In February 1996, state ... In February 1997" mildly repetitive.
 * Reworded
 * "another mile north" consistently convert.
 * Done
 * "vote on a new $475 million bond measure ... voted on the measure" repetitive.
 * Reworded
 * "rejected it by 52 percent" I'm no good with maths any more, do you mean 52 percent of people voted against it?
 * Indeed
 * "the Interstate MAX and Yellow Line" these link to the same article.
 * Combined
 * I don't think we need to link bicycle or pedestrian, common English words.
 * Omitted
 * "at $1.49 billion (equivalent to $1.6 billion in 2019 dollars)" the first inflation, but many values have gone without inflation and the further back the more important such conversions are for contemporary context. I would do the inflation every time.
 * I do this only for the total project cost to mitigate confusion as some funding pieces are provided in different years. I'd prefer to keep it that way, but will oblige if you disagree.
 * "rights-of-way" you've linked this twice, to different articles, but which one is relevant to the time you haven't linked it?
 * Oops, fixed
 * "allowing these crossings to" -> "allowing them to"
 * Done
 * "Governor Kate Brown" is there a link for Governor?
 * Added
 * "the 7.3 miles (11.7 km)" should be adj=on.
 * Oops thanks for catching that
 * "became interlined with" this links to "through train" but I had to click away because I have no idea what "interlined" means.
 * I've added to the Through train article to help with this
 * "through-operate " this is a grim construction, does it mean "through trains operate"?
 * Changed to "operate(s) through"
 * I think it would be legitimate to link viaduct.
 * Done
 * "at-grade" link.
 * Done
 * "As of 2019, these plans have not been enacted" any update for 2021?
 * 2019 is the latest source I've found to mention it
 * Are the coloured blobs in the table accessible to colour-blind readers?
 * They are TriMet official colors, which claims 100% accessibility. So likely.
 * [107][92][c] - not essential but everywhere else is in numerical order.
 * Done
 * "Serves OMSI, Tilikum Crossing" etc in table Tilikum needs to be linked. If table is sortable, all linkable items should be linked each time as there's no assurance that the linked item will come first after a re-sort.
 * Done
 * I note the schedules (at least some of them) were updated on 2 May, so you can revise the times/numbers as required in the Service section.
 * Done, although the schedule changes pretty often which is why I use the as of tp (changed again May 9)
 * Ref 68 has different date format.
 * I think it's been fixed? I can't find a ref using a different date format
 * Responding to some. Will finish later today. --truflip99 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Still some left, sorry this is taking me a minute. Been a tad busy. --truflip99 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem at all.  Take your time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed all of your points. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article! --truflip99 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All good for me. To be honest I struggled to find much I didn't like about it first time round and now my minor issues have been addressed I'm happy to support.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I've garnered everyone's support. May we move forward? --truflip99 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that TRM's review is complete, I think so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)