Talk:First Hill Streetcar

First Hill Streetcar has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 27, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Trains: Streetcars Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 31, 2009
Sel	week 23, 2022

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

United States: Washington / Seattle / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Pioneer Square / I.D. Loop

This loop was taken out in favor of a simple terminus Jackson, just west of 2nd Ave, so the map is currently inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.25.60 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Capitol Hill Blog timeline: CHS Pics | First Hill Streetcar celebrated in the International District (February 14, 2016) Sounder Bruce 23:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Hill Streetcar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924104806/http://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-events/News-releases/Streetcar-groundbreaking-42312.xml to http://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-events/News-releases/Streetcar-groundbreaking-42312.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership Statistics

With the opening of the second Seattle streetcar line, First Hill's Streetcar, the data traditionally reported to APTA for yearly and weekday ridership is now being reported for both lines, combined.  Different sources are needed to separate out the streetcar lines.  The City-requested KPMG report had separated ridership as well as the SDOT Streetcar report.

http://durkan.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/FINAL-Initial-Summary_Streetcar-Cost-Review-20180831.pdf http://herbold.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/November-2018-Semi-Annual-Streetcar-Report.pdf

I have attempted to insert the 2017 ridership numbers from SDOT's report and add additional numbers from the 2016 ridership citation, but it was reverted.  Maybe a ridership table (as was done for SLU streetcar) is appropriate here, although it's really only two years of solid numbers at this point. Jwfowble (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:First Hill Streetcar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 23:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I have made several copy edits to the article, mostly for sentence structure. Please review and revise anything I screwed up.
Thanks for the copyedits. I did go back and change a few of your tweaks just to match what I remember from the sources.

The lead is a little short, but passable. Nothing vital is missing.

"an onboard electric battery" - I'm almost certain electric is redundant, but the possibility of a technical distinction means I've leaving it for you to decide.
I've decided to remove it.

According to local improvement district, the term is specific to Canada. I'll let you decide if it should stay linked.
I will change the redirect to a description of the American version, which is in use by several states.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
There's a citation request at the end of the Stations subsection that needs to be addressed in some manner.
I've hidden the sentence until I can find a suitable source. It's well documented in physical form, but that's not citeable.

The claim that Metro refers to the line as Route 96 is not supported by the citation given.
I will have to look for a source that has that claim, but I thought I had added it before.
Since it's just a minor claim, I've hidden it for now.

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
ear wig raises no concern.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Argento Surfer: Thanks for picking this article up for review. I've answered your concerns above, with the exception of the missing citations. Sounder Bruce 07:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With the two uncited claims hidden, I'm comfortable passing this. Nice work, as usual! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2019 (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.