Talk:Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel/GA1

GA Review

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

General comments

Images are fine, all licensed and captioned appropriately.
Article is stable, no ongoing edit-wars, etc.
No copyvio problems found.

Lede

This could be tightened up: "The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel is one of two rail-bus tunnels in the United States, alongside the Mount Washington Transit Tunnel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. However, the DSTT is the only rail-bus tunnel in the United States with stations, as the Mount Washington Transit Tunnel lacks stations." ---> "The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel is one of two rail-bus tunnels in the United States, alongside the Mount Washington Transit Tunnel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and is the only one in the United States with stations."

Planning, funding and design

In the last sentence, I'd delete the word "controversial". Readers will already understand the dispute over the buses, having read this far into the article.

This is an excellent article and, these minor tweaks aside, I look forward to promoting it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coemgenus: Done and done. Thanks for the review. Sounder Bruce 01:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.