Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seattle Center Monorail/archive2

Seattle Center Monorail

 * Nominator(s):  Sounder Bruce  02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my second attempt at bringing Seattle's other space age icon to FA status. What's not to love about a functional monorail with only one stop in each direction, using the original 1960s trains, and prone to accidents every now and then? Since the last FAC, the article has gone through a fresh copyedit and some minor work.  Sounder Bruce  02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Images appear to be freely licensed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Renovations and preservation" section is too long. Can it be split into subsections? (As for what's wrong with the monorail, I can tell you: colossal waste of taxpayer money.) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All but the first and last two paragraphs of the section cover the renovation project, which I would rather keep together. I'll look into how I can balance it (maybe by spinning out a station article, if it meets notability), but it'll take a while. Maybe we should use those funds to fix up Main Street.  Sounder Bruce  06:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. I reviewed the previous nomination and all my comments were addressed. I was waiting to see how the other reviews played out before declaring support but by then it had been open for a while and was archived. Hopefully it'll get its star on the second attempt. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 14:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Truflip99
Thought I would provide my comments as I did the previous one. Hoping you have some time to provide comments on my candidate below as well. I had two points in the previous fac that doesn't appear to have been addressed yet. Will do a full read of the article soon. --truflip99 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An emergency repair to the Westlake terminal was made in 1974 at a cost of $100,000 to replace metal shields under the platforms that caught debris. -- debris from what?
 * Seems to have been for stuff dropped from the platform by passengers.
 * Expansion proposals -- worth mentioning anywhere here that the proposed service expansions of the monorail (e.g. to Sea-Tac Airport) were ultimately fulfilled by Link light rail
 * Added two lines for the Ballard/West Seattle project, but trying to fit in the earlier proposals is a bit of a stretch due to the lack of available sources.  Sounder Bruce  03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you like to continue the review? This nomination hasn't attracted all that many comments as of late.  Sounder Bruce  06:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Supporting based on my previous one, and the changes made here. --truflip99 (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
 * Be consistent on whether you include location and/or publisher for periodicals
 * Removed from the two citations where they were used.
 * Was this source considered for inclusion? Can you speak to the approach to searching for sources?
 * I don't have access to this paper through any of my database credentials, but based on the summary it seems to only cover a minor refurbishment that was already covered by local newspapers.
 * What was your approach to searching for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, I skimmed through the local newspaper archives for all hits of "monorail" from 1957 onward, adding supplemental materials where I found them necessary. I also used two books that I have in my personal collection, but both had broader scopes and only mentioned the monorail for a few pages at most. The local library has dozens of results for "monorail" in the catalog, but most pertain to the 2000s expansion program or are not available for in-library viewing due to the pandemic.  Sounder Bruce  06:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in how the service's website is cited. (Personally I would argue for the simpler, publisher-only version). There seem to be quite a lot of references to this site - could any be replaced by independent sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dropped SMS from those citations. They mostly cover basic information like schedules and ticketing that would not be updated by a secondary source in a timely manner, so I think it should be fine for uncontroversial and basic information.  Sounder Bruce  06:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This nomination has been open for five weeks and so far has just the one support. Unless it attracts more interest in the next couple of days it s liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This nomination has three supports, but another reviewer has not responded to several requests to continue their review. Is it in danger of being archived again?  Sounder Bruce  00:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so, despite it being long in the tooth now -- will take a proper look shortly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, the article and the review have been stable for a couple of weeks now, I see no reason not to promote. FWIW I couldn't find anything to tweak in the lead, nor anything serious in my list of words to watch ("however", "in order", "various", etc) so well done there too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis
Same-old method. Comments resolved, support. AGF on the sources, so just gonna focus on prose, infobox, image.


 * (LEAD) Link straddle beam monorail instead of simply monorail. Is the hyphen needed?
 * Don't think we need to confuse readers by linking to a redirect in the lead sentence, as the basic concept of a monorail needs to be covered first.
 * (LEAD) I believe Seattle and Washington (state) should be linked per relevance.
 * WP:OLINK discourages secondary links to the state when the city is already linked and is the main subject.
 * (LEAD) "The system retains its original fleet of two Alweg trains"-- what original? Is the predecessor the King County? If so, the King County should be mentioned prior.
 * As in the trains used from opening day; added a mention but using the year would be repetitive.
 * (LEAD) "The city designated them"-- the trains, or the monorail?
 * Fixed.
 * (SERVICE AND FARES) "and closed entirely on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas." Omit "Day", probably gotta link Thanksgiving.
 * The link was originally removed via the first FAC per WP:OLINK, as it is a common concept for NorAm readers, as si the use of "Day".
 * (SERVICE AND FARES) "Children four and under ride free." Poor wording. Perhaps "Children four and under are able to ride free."
 * Fixed.
 * (OPERATIONS) "In 2018, the Seattle Center Monorail carried approximately 2.022 million passengers, averaging 4,780 passengers on weekdays and 7,536 passengers on weekends. The service generated $4.3 million in fare revenue and received approximately $883,000 in capital funds from local and federal governments." Duplicate citation.
 * This isn't an issue. Citations can be duplicated between different sentences for clarity in verification.
 * (OPERATIONS) "90 percent of World's Fair visitors"-- perhaps link to the relevant "World's Fair"?
 * Not appropriate in this context, as it refers to the already-linked Century 21 Exposition and not the general concept.
 * (ROLLING STOCK AND GUIDEWAY) "named the "Blue Train" (originally Spirit of Seattle) and "Red Train" (originally Spirit of Century 21)". Why is the current name quoted, but the former's italicized?
 * The current names are common monikers, while the original names were proper names, hence the treatment.  Sounder Bruce  06:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Will put more later.  Gerald WL  05:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you planning to continue the review?  Sounder Bruce  10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from A. Parrot
Seems comprehensive, but I spot a few problems.
 * As pointed out in the previous FAC, the article says a trip takes about two minutes, but the video takes three. A minute is a sizable discrepancy in so short a route. But if the cited source is the only one you can dig up for the travel time, I suppose it makes sense to let "about" take care of the discrepancy.
 * The two-minute figure seems to be the most common.
 * The name of the company is sometimes given as Alweg and sometimes as Alwac or Alwec.
 * Fixed use of Alwac (the company name; Alwec was a typo), and am attempting to clear up the confusion with Alweg (the product line).
 * The sentence about the 5-mile loop proposal would be clearer if it started out by saying it was one of two competing proposals, rather than putting the "competing carveyor" on the end as almost an afterthought.
 * Fleshed it out a bit and split the sentence.
 * "…was closed again over the weekend because of protests in Downtown Seattle". The sources say nothing about the closure or the protests. I assume these were the George Floyd protests, which should be linked if mentioned.
 * The archived version of the second citation mentions the protests, which I have linked.
 * The first two sentences about the 1971 accident seem like they could be combined in a more intuitive order: state that the brakes failed, then that the train struck a girder, then list the injuries. A. Parrot (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the comments and other copyedits.  Sounder Bruce  05:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A. Parrot (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)