Jump to content

Talk:MAX Yellow Line/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.


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

Reviewer: Kew Gardens 613 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Lead Like in the review for MAX Red Line, I would space out light rail in the lead to The MAX Yellow Line is a light rail line in Portland, Oregon, United States, operated by TriMet as part of the MAX Light Rail system.

Early proposals

Revival and construction

Planned extension to Clark County, Washington

  • Studies of a third bridge spanning the Columbia River, which had been abandoned in the late 1980 It isn't clear that you are saying whether they were studying a new bridge with light rail, or using a bridge that had been abandoned. I presume the latter, but you should make this clear.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wording is awkward, Studies of a third bridge spanning the Columbia River, which had been abandoned in the late 1980s, that included a light rail component, in addition to a light rail-only bridge and an underground tunnel were conducted. It takes a while for the reader to understand that the sentence was mentioning that studies were conducted. I would change it to "Studies were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of adding light rail onto a third bridge spanning the Columbia River, which had been abandoned in the late 1980s, in addition to a light rail-only bridge and an underground tunnel."--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Good to go on this point.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Infobox

Early proposals

Service

Planned extension to Clark County, Washington

2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Great newspaper references!
2c. it contains no original research.

Route Source 66 does not state that there is a grade crossing on North Argyle Street.

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Looks good. I have to take your word that you did not plagiarize from the newspapers that are not online. I trust you.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

Early proposals

Opening and realignment

  • It would be useful to provide some background history on the Portland Transit Mall. Unlike the detailed description of the planning for the rest of the line, there is not much here.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Portland Transit Mall history is a beast of a topic that may transcend the nominal topic of this article since it was never built as part of the Yellow Line (It was built for the Green Line in 2009). I included the See also in this section because the Yellow Line is just the result of the South–North Line's complicated history; the See also [will be] more concise in the future (I haven't gotten to it yet). Would that be okay? --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if was built for the Green Line, it was used for the Yellow Line, and was a major part of its history. Was it not the initial plan to use it for the Yellow Line. I would suggest adding a little background on it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have to say no. Light rail on the Portland Transit Mall is part of the South–North Line history (which ceased in 1998). The Interstate MAX became a separate project that arose after the failure of the South–North Line. I updated the article to give a shoutout to when planning resumed for the transit mall segment (as well as Caruthers Crossing), but I would like to keep these topics separate and elaborated only in their respective line articles. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From opening day to 2009, the Yellow Line followed First Avenue and Morrison and Yamhill streets upon entry into downtown Portland, terminating at the Library and Galleria stations and turning around at the 11th Avenue tracks. On August 30, 2009, the line was rerouted to use the light rail tracks added to the newly-rebuilt Portland Transit Mall, with the PSU South stations as its southern termini. What made up for the loss of Yellow Line service along First Avenue?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the completion of the Portland–Milwaukie light rail project, which extended MAX service to Milwaukie, the Yellow Line became partially interlined with the Orange Line due to higher projected ridership along the latter; most Orange Line trains subsequently took over operation of the southbound segment of the transit mall on Southwest 5th Avenue in September 2015. What was the initial plan before ridership was higher on the Orange Line. Has their been any confusion concerning this service pattern? Why do the Orange and Yellow have different designated change over points in the two directions?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planned extension to Clark County, Washington

Route

Ridership

  • This paragraph immediately begs the question, why hasn't ridership met expectations? Do you know anything about this?
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No issues.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. This also looks good.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. This looks good.
7. Overall assessment.

Hello Truflip99 (talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will try to be as thorough as I can, so bear with me. Thanks for requesting my help. This is my second review of an article, so if there is anything I could do better, please tell me.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Suggestions

[edit]

These are not needed for the review, but would help it out.

@Kew Gardens 613: I believe I have addressed all of the issues you pointed out. Please let me know if there is any else. I can't thank you enough for the extremely thorough review work you put into this. Thank you!! --Truflip99 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 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.