Talk:Beaverton Transit Center/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 20:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Opening review Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Style
- Lead might be a little long for the article
- Perhaps some of the location/busy statistics info (last three sentences of first paragraph) could get their own body section? (Though there seems to be some duplication in Station details and Services already) - Lead only really needs to say it's the busiest
- I have shortened it. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps some of the location/busy statistics info (last three sentences of first paragraph) could get their own body section? (Though there seems to be some duplication in Station details and Services already) - Lead only really needs to say it's the busiest
- Lead well-written
- Generally well-written throughout
- Seriously, I can't even find a comma to fix
- Needs attention
- Coverage
- Is it possible to get some prose on the bus services? If there's nothing on them, the detailed list is fine.
- Done. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Detailed but concise, with good phrasing, throughout
- Unless there's any future plans hiding, looks good
- Pass
- Illustration
- Infobox good
- Good use of image in history
- And of platform
- Platform diagram - question about the door sides, though, because the Red line/island platform/left doesn't seem to work, nor WES/side/left or right
- Corrected. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the bus station needs two image, especially since the relevant section is too small to hold either and they've been put next to rail services
- I think I would prefer to keep it, if that's okay. It's a nice image. And demonstrates the station's design well. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Needs attention
- Stability
- History good
- Talk page shows no disputes
- Pass
- Neutrality
- All good
- Pass
- Verifiability
- All sources look good, but are there no links to the older The Oregonian articles? Even a scan archive somewhere online?
- Everything cited, down to pages
- Pass
- Copyright
- earwig check worked and is clear.
- Images all free and licensed
- Pass
- Overall
on hold Just a few things, but a good looking article Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Thank you so much for taking this one! It's been pending for a while now, so I really appreciate it. Please let me know if I could address anything else. Thanks, again. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Truflip99: It's a nice article! Maybe move one of those bus images down, but it's not too image-heavy so I don't mind them staying.
Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Truflip99: It's a nice article! Maybe move one of those bus images down, but it's not too image-heavy so I don't mind them staying.
- @Kingsif: Thank you so much for taking this one! It's been pending for a while now, so I really appreciate it. Please let me know if I could address anything else. Thanks, again. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.