Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MAX Yellow Line/archive1

MAX Yellow Line

 * Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a service of TriMet's MAX Light Rail system in Portland, Oregon. It has one of the more eventful histories of any rail line in the city that started with attempts to build a bi-state "South–North Line" between Vancouver in Washington and Oregon City. The project failed thrice in 1995, 1996, and 1998. North Portland residents, still wanting to benefit from light rail, convinced TriMet to build just the segment of the South–North Line in their neck of the woods. To fund the project without costing tax payers, Portland created an urban renewal area. That same urban renewal area ended up displacing many of the local residents, mostly minorities. In 2008, Oregon and Washington tried to extend the line to Vancouver again with a freeway bridge megaproject. The project failed for the fourth time in 2013, but plans still exist. truflip99 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass
Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.


 * My first thought is that this has too many images. Eleven for a 3,200 word article seems unnecessary; and many are similar.
 * There are now eight.


 * Be consistent in use of alt text - including for the image in the infobox.
 * Done.


 * "File:FREEWAY (ROUTE I-5) RUNS DIRECTLY THROUGH THIS ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA OF NORTHEAST PORTLAND - NARA - 548092.jpg" Can we have a proper "Source" for this? (Most of the required information seems to be in "Record ID".)
 * I'm not sure that I should edit this as it was part of a wikiproject with the National Archives, and there are a ton of images that have been uploaded using the same format.
 * I have amended it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Captions: two use "shown in" while the others use "in". I think it would be best to standardise on "in".
 * Fixed.


 * Map(s)

I am putting this in a separate subsection as I suspect that it may be a running theme.

The main map is much improved by having MAXYL in red. Not sure why the others are labelled as "dark grey", they show as black to me. It would be helpful to also have maps which show:
 * 1) The stations of MAXYL, which may be schematic.
 * Added a link to the official TriMet schematic (link to website as it's copyrighted)


 * 1) The other lines of the system, and/or those which share stations and/or routes with MAXYL.
 * I contemplated this, but it would take me weeks and potentially drive me insane.


 * 1) Portland and Vancouver with the failed proposed routes on and locations named in the text shown. Eg Clackamas and the Willamette River.
 * I think this is beyond the scope of the article--I plan to draft a separate article on the "South–North Line" in the future.

I don't insist on all of these, but hopefully it can be seen how these might improve comprehension. Currently the article is difficult to follow for a non-local.

A push pin map is like the one labelled "Location of Auberoche in modern Nouvelle-Aquitaine, and other places named in the text" in Battle of Auberoche. If you look at it in edit mode you will see how it is constructed. A list of available maps can be found here, although may be more useful. Instructions are here. I have put a rough draft of the start of a possible map in a sandbox; it may not be the most suitable map and does not have the locations you want.
 * I didn't think this was possible for the raw JSON maps because I haven't seen any examples, but after some research I found a way to add pins for the station termini with links (have to click) which hopefully suffices. --truflip99 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Place holder Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing to take this up! I really appreciate it. --truflip99 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. It seemed a bit of a niche area - even by my standards! So it seemed appropriate to help out. Let's see what we have.

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.


 * How about an explanation of MAX in the first sentence? - "(or Metropolitan Area Express)".
 * The official name "Metro Area Express" is so underutilized that I think it's only worth mentioning in the parent article, MAX Light Rail.
 * I disagree. This is an encyclopedia article. Even if the formal name is never used I believe that its origin should be mentioned - it does not have to be in the lead - to meet 1b.
 * Sounds good. I have added an explanation in the first paragraph.


 * "an average of 12,960 weekday riders daily" If we are only counting weekdays, then it is not "daily"> → 'an average of 12,960 riders each weekday'?
 * Indeed, that sounds a lot better. Changed.


 * Halfway through reading the lead I realised that I would need a map to understand it. The one in the article doesn't cut it: there are few place names and none named in the lead. I couldn't even work out which of the thick black lines was MAXYL. In despair I Googled a map, clicked on the best looking one, and ... it was already in Wikipedia Commons. Is there any reason why File:Portland rail map.png is not used? Also note MAX light rail maps.
 * I've edited the lead hopefully to explain it more clearly. Unfortunately with this article, the Yellow Line's color blends with the map (as opposed to MAX Red Line). That Portland rail map is outdated now and a new one would need to be drawn. As far as not using this map (I created it), I would prefer to use a map that would be responsive to change should an expansion take place (a vote will take place this year for a new line).


 * "via a potential route" → 'via potential routes'?
 * Fixed.


 * And maybe a pushpin map with other oft-mentioned places on? (Eg, where the Devil is Clackamas?)
 * Could you please elaborate/provide an example?


 * "Preliminary alignment studies to Washington's Clark County" Does Clark County have some connection with Vancouver?
 * Yes, Vancouver is the county seat/principal city of Clark County. I have edited the text to clarify this.


 * "and accepted a proposal that would have crossed the Willamette River on the Steel Bridge and recommended a new span at Caruthers Crossing" Is Caruthers Crossing on the Willamette?
 * Yes it is.


 * "terminating an additional mile north of Lombard Street in Kenton" Additional to what?
 * to the proposed 15-mile (24 km) line between Lombard Street and Clackamas Town Center


 * What is "Regional government Metro"?
 * Metro is the regional government of the Portland metro area; they typically decide on these rail projects


 * "renew voter support for another $475 million bond measure" Does the use of "another" mean that it is over and above the $475 mn approved in November 1994?
 * It is the same amount, just a new bond measure. I've clarified the text.
 * Sorry, but "a new $475 million bond measure" sounds like, well, a new bond measure, not a confirmation of the one previously approved.
 * Well yes, that's because it was. They were trying to reaffirm voter support; see if people would still pay for a light rail line. I tweaked the wording again to reflect this.

--truflip99 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to get around to this, and I am now going to take a break, but more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've all the time in the world, un/fortunately! --truflip99 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Continued


 * "North Portland residents and community business leaders" Optional: "community" seems redundant to me.
 * Changed to city, as they weren't exclusive to North Portland.


 * "that the Federal Transit Administration approved that September" Is it possible to avoid having "that" twice in seven words?
 * Removed.


 * "required a 16-day closure of the operating segment" I assume that the closure is of the Eastside MAX line? If so, could this be made explicit?
 * Done.


 * "Proposed extension to Clark County, Washington" section: the first paragraph refers to Vancouver; the second to Clark County. Is there a reason for this? If not it would be helpful to be consistent.
 * Done, retained Vancouver in the first part as the name of the line had Vancouver in it. Some early plans extended beyond the city of Vancouver. --truflip99 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Good responses. Two above with ongoing comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They have been addressed. --truflip99 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice article, good work; supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciate the great feedback, which I will be using in related articles. Thank you! --truflip99 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from DAP
Place holder. DAP 💅 03:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

my sincerest apologies for the nearly three week-long delay for a response. With that being said, the prose and article scope are exceptional of rail Wiki pieces I've read, and all of the minor faults raised seemed to have been already addressed. Well done, happy to provide my support. Cheers! DAP 💅 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Thank you very much for the quick support. --truflip99 (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Historical Digression 2
Place holder. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In your summary above, you note “That same urban renewal area ended up displacing many of the local residents, mostly minorities.” As you note, it’s part of the line’s significance and certainly was a hook for me. Should such a sentence be included in the lead?
 * Added


 * “…which voters turned down by 69 percent on February 7, 1995.” Is it just about taxes or was there some other rationale to vote against that you could include here? If just money, fine.
 * From what I read in the articles, it was just about the taxes


 * “Amid fears that the exclusion of Clark County would result in ridership too low to justify a North Portland segment…” seem awkward. Maybe, “Amid fears that ridership would not justify a North Portland segment if Clark County were excluded…”?
 * Replaced


 * Early proposals section: I see how the image of the interstates is relevant. But what I really could use in this section (being totally unfamiliar with the Portland area) is a map that locates at least some of these many neighborhoods and places being mentioned. Is this possible? Or, for that matter, do you have access to any maps from the early proposals? The external map below does help but it would be helpful here to see the line in the original/alternate proposals, if possible.
 * Acquiring relevant images for this article was actually pretty difficult... and there aren't really any available photos to illustrate the early proposals. Even I'm a little iffy about the actual alignment and I would probably have to deep dive into some old newspaper scans at the library (the sources I use are text only). Unfortunately, libraries are closed atm.


 * “those against the measure narrowly defeated it, 52 percent to 48 percent.” Again, is there something to say briefly about reasons for opposition?
 * Sources don't really say because it was actually unexpected


 * “Meetings and polls conducted in June of that year determined that people…” What people?
 * changed to locals


 * Throughout the History section, I’m having trouble with terminology—and maybe I’m just being dense. But can you add some explanation for dummies like me as to the relationship between the “Interstate MAX” and the “MAX Yellow Line”? It’s probably painfully obvious to a local, but not at all to me. And I’m not really finding clarification here. Are they one and the same? In the History section are you discussing the creation of a larger system or just the MAX Yellow Line. If you’re addressing the creation of a larger system, maybe the section titles need to call this out with explanation heading up the section?
 * No, you make a fair point. I've reworded the opening section to clarify the two a little better. But yes, they are technically synonymous. --truflip99 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Just a few more comments from me:
 * “Attempts have since been made to restore rail service to Clark County.” In a few places you refer to such plans being rejected by Washington taxpayers. It prompts the question, if they don’t want it in Washington who keeps proposing the extension and why? This spot might be a good place to elaborate in just a sentence or two on this?
 * Just bad traffic. The last paragraph in that section now says who and why.


 * “This culminated into the Columbia River Crossing project in 2008.” Should be “culminated in”?
 * Replaced


 * Under ridership, “attributed to crime and lower-income riders being forced…” reads like crime is modifying riders. Maybe, “attributed both to crime and to lower-income riders being…”
 * Done

A well-written article. I particularly like that you cover the social and political issues. Very good.Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I really appreciate your feedback. --truflip99 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Noting my support above because I feel this article meets all the FAC criteria. It goes above and beyond most rail articles to address social and political context. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have submitted a request in the talk page. Thank you! --truflip99 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Passed image and ref reviews and four supports. Is there anything else I need to do? --truflip99 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass
I will do some spotchecks. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 9a - seems fine.
 * However (not related to spotchecks), Officially named the South–North Line, 63 percent of Portland area voters approved a $475 million bond measure in November to cover Oregon's portion of the project's estimated $2.8 billion cost has a dangling modifier.
 * Could you pinpoint? I'm dumb.
 * The line is Officially named the South–North Line. However, this is immediately followed by 63 percent of Portland area voters. The modifier "Officially named the South–North Line" should be followed by a mention of the line itself. Otherwise, "Officially named the South–North Line" can describe the voters instead, and I don't think voters are officially called the South–North Line. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. Fixed! --truflip99 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 11 - seems fine, but it looks to be a blog.
 * Yeah, not sure why it has that but it comes from a reliable source.


 * 23b - seems fine
 * 24 - I don't see the headline "Bridge to the Future" in the article. Also, and more importantly, this doesn't seem to support the sentence Much of the proposal's southern half, from Caruthers Street to Milwaukie, would also remain shelved until the opening of the Orange Line in 2015.
 * Replace entirely.


 * 36 - this is paywalled, so you should send this over to me
 * Seems fine. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 38 - this is paywalled, so you should send this over to me
 * I will send these over to your Talk page.
 * Seems fine. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 66 - seems fine, but this source seems like it has an informal tone. Is there a better source available?
 * I don't believe it gets any better than a source coming from a newspaper of record


 * 70 - seems fine
 * 90 - page number?
 * Dang it, thought I did that. Done.


 * 91 - this is paywalled, so you should send this over to me
 * Sending.
 * Seems fine. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Other formatting issues:
 * You linked "The Oregonian" once but "Arcadia Publishing" twice.
 * Good spot thanks


 * Be consistent on whether you include publisher locations.
 * Amended


 * For some of the PDFs (e.g. refs 1, 65), you should cite page numbers if the sources are more than a couple of pages.
 * This seems relative. I do this when it's more than 5 pages. Is there a MOS?
 * Not a MOS that I know of, but generally I include page numbers in sources with more than 2 pages (and, depending on context, even in sources with 2 pages). The purpose is to be as specific as possible. WP:PAGENUM kind of touches on that, but doesn't specify how big a page range must be - only that, if the relevant info is on one page only, it would be best to cite these specific pages. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ref 47 is the only one with a quote. Is that intentional? 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's because the title is vague and we couldn't provide an online article version, so it would help readers to have the quote.

Thanks for the ref review,. I have responded to these. --truflip99 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I talked with some people off-wiki, and they believe the PDF citations should have page numbers that are as specific as possible. That's the only outstanding point for this source review 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Page numbers have been added. Thanks again! --truflip99 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great. Passing this source review. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, tks for taking the time to spotcheck and review ref formatting -- can you confirm if you're signing of as well on the reliability of the sources? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can confirm I am also approving the reliability of the sources. epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)