Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Washington station/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2018.

University of Washington station

 * Nominator(s):  Sounder Bruce  01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a glass box in front of a football stadium that tens of thousands of people enter in order to descend 100 feet and board a train. In other words, a pretty standard train station, though one that had a long and complex planning process that preceded its construction. This article recently passed GA and went through a GOCE cleanup and I feel it's ready to join Seattle's other glass box as an FA.  Sounder Bruce  01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: This nomination is part of the ongoing WikiCup competition.  Sounder Bruce  01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Ref 14: Check the page, given here as "p. 2-2" – single page or mistyped range?
 * The reference is on page "2-2" (section 2, page 2). I use endashes and the pp. parameter for multi-page citations.
 * Maybe a "2:2" format would be less confusing, but I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have decided to replace the citation entirely, since I recently found the original document with that specific map.  Sounder Bruce  02:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 35: I'm not sure how this untitled source supports the statement cited to it: "The FTA rejected the mid-block crosswalk and a compromise pedestrian overpass connecting to the center of the Montlake Triangle from Rainier Vista was adopted in 2011."
 * The first part (about the FTA rejection) is supported by page 5 of Ref 35 (the PDF), which states the following: "Spring 2010 – at-grade crossings not approved by FTA;".
 * Ref 58, also 77: I was denied access to these Seattle Times sources as I had apparently "reached my limit of free articles". Curiosly, I was allowed access to 60, 66, 67 and 81.
 * The older articles (community.seattletimes) are not behind the paywall that newer articles are. You can load them into incognito mode to bypass the paywall.
 * I'll take you word for it! Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability and in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've answered your questions above.  Sounder Bruce  23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Images review

 * File:University of Washington Station Pictogram.svg: Wow, I almost missed this image ... so small. Anyhow, it looks like both use, licensing and rationale are OK.
 * File:University of Washington Station entrance, Aug 2016 (29979336625).jpg: Use and license seems fine for me.
 * File:University Link Tunnel construction aerial 2012 (2).jpg: Use and license seem fine for me.
 * File:University of Washington Station escalator queue (30057632175).jpg: Use and license seem fine for me.
 * Not all images appear to have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Added ALT text for the pictogram. Only remaining ones without ALT text are portal icons.  Sounder Bruce  06:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius
I don't think anyone has reviewed the prose yet. So I will have a try.
 * the terminus of the Central Link line, which continues south towards Capitol Hill station and Downtown Seattle - This is weird because usually, terminus means end. But in railway terminology, this is fine although it's grammatically awkward. I suggest clarifying that this is the northern terminus. Anyway, you'll need to update this when the Central Link Northgate Extension opens, so maybe this is kind of minor.
 * Tweaked a bit.
 * University of Washington station; Capitol Hill and University of Washington stations - doesn't the definite article "the" come before this phrase?
 * The station itself doesn't need the definite article, and sounds a bit awkward with it.
 * To the northwest is University of Washington campus - also needs a definite article.
 * Done.
 * rejected 1911 comprehensive plan for Seattle - this could be worded into "rejected comprehensive plan for Seattle in 1911" or something similar.
 * Done.
 * after it received construction bids that were $171 million higher than expected - I'm assuming that the soil was the cause of the high cost. Is that correct?
 * Yes, and I have added a second factor to that sentence.
 * The alternatives were narrowed to two finalists in early 2002; - the semicolon at the end should be a colon.
 * Done.
 * By the end of the year, the station was averaging 9,300 daily boardings, placing it second among Link stations for ridership. - I'm interested as to what the first station is.
 * Added.
 * downtown transit tunnel - this should link to Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel.
 * Done.
 * the planned "U District" station to the west of the campus, which was scheduled to open in 2021 - with this phrasing, it sounds like U District won't open at all.
 * Fixed.
 * Station layout - so is the Northgate-bound track not in service?
 * It is in service, as trains layover and leave from both sides of the platform (with signs directing people towards the next train to leave). I switched it so both tracks are labeled as southbound ones.
 * The colors of the walls drew criticism from fans of the Huskies football team because they were similar to the neon yellow that was later adopted by rivals Oregon - the end of the sentence is awkward. What about "Oregon, the rival team" or something similar?
 * Done.

Otherwise, seems like a very good article. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have gone through and made the changes you suggested.  Sounder Bruce  02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I think I'll support this nomination. I might come back with further comments later, but I think everything is OK for now. epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber
Looking over it now...


 * The station area is within a short driving distance of the University Village shopping center and Seattle Children's Hospital - need to be more specific. I mean, SF to LA is "short" compared with SF to NY....
 * Added distances based on a map reference. Couldn't find any text sources listing out how far the two are from the station.
 * ... due to a competitive labor market and unexpected soil conditions found during testing that would require a deeper tunnel - reads oddly as you have a noun and verbal construction. it would flow better with something like "due to a competitive labor market and underground testing that indicated a deeper tunnel was needed" - come to think of it, anything more on the soil conditions?
 * Fixed.
 *  The alternatives were narrowed to two finalists in early 2002 - finalists?? why not just "options" or "routes"....
 * Changed to "options".

Otherwise looks on track prose- and comprehensivenesswise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed your three points.  Sounder Bruce  04:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

 * The University of Washington has long-term plans to redevelop its parking lots along Montlake Boulevard into additional office and classroom space, due to their proximity to the station: I don't see support for this in the given source; can you point me at the right paragraph?
 * The plan is listed under the "East Campus" section, with the graphic showing its proximity to UW Station. I have removed the last phrase, since it isn't directly supported.
 * OK; that was what was bothering me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sequence of sections seems odd; wouldn't it be more natural to have the station layout and services before the history and future plans?
 * The sections are made to match other station articles, so I'm hesitant to change the order. I would rather have the Station layout after the history, since it describes the final design and would be a natural successor to the history section; in the same vein, the Services section describes current schedule and would complement the history section once it is expanded to include former service patterns (come 2021 and beyond). I would be willing to move the future plans section after the Services section, since it only describes changes to the service patterns.  Sounder Bruce  21:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll strike this, since the sequence isn't wrong, but I suspect that this organization will seem less natural in ten or fifteen years, when the planning and construction phase is a distant memory. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The prose is very clean; I can't find a single comma to copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Support. The one issue I had is minor and a matter of opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.