Talk:Link light rail

POV and sources

Just a quick explanation for the POV and reliable sources templates I put on the East Link controversy section.

1. The controversy subsection is unnecessary. The section isn't that large the text covering the "controversy" can easily be worked into the East link section.
2. The wording in the section is extremely POV and none of it is supported by any reliable sources. As an example the references to "most controversial", "vigorous opposition", and the complete lack of qualifiers in connection to the residents of eastern King County make the opposition appear more widespread than perhaps it really is, especially if there isn't sources to support it.
3. Only the opposition viewpoint is presented and is perhaps given undue weight.

#The Woodinville Subdivision paragraph may not be applicable to an article on light rail. The line is heavy rail which (from what I understand) isn't compatible with Link Light Rail and the consultants I've read are talking about fixing the rails for a heavy rail system. So perhaps the Sounder commuter rail is more appropriate for that paragraph? And just because I'll probably be going through and rewriting the section, here's a link to the version I'm talking about.[1] --Bobblehead 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing of History section

Is there a particular reason why the History section was summarized and child article History of Link Light Rail was created? This article only had 26k of readable prose at the time and wasn't really big enough yet to require the creation of child articles. I would have also preferred that if something had to be calved off that the Current lines and Future lines sections be the ones that were summarized. The lines are the least interesting portion of the article, in my opinion, and by getting rid of all but a few k of the history section this article is too small to be interesting (less than 10k of readable prose). Unless someone is planning on doing a major expansion of this article (ala New York City Subway or Bay Area Rapid Transit), I'm going to be moving the history section back into this article and turning the History article into a redirect. This wouldn't mean the child article couldn't be re-used at a future date, it just isn't needed now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it was only 26k, it was still out of the scale of the rest of the article, and for someone who is just looking up Link Light Rail, it was too much. The original history section of the Link Light Rail article was about twice or three times as long as the history section is of the New York City Subway article, while the New York City Subway is one of the largest and oldest subway networks in the world and the main segment of the Link Light Rail hasn't opened yet. The Bay Area Rapid Transit article, which you also cited, has a history section about as long as the current Link Light Rail history section, and is twice as long as the amount of Link Light Rail that has been approved. Both the New York City Subway and Bay Area Rapid Transit have separate history articles. Therefore, based on the precedent set by the BART article, rated a Good Article under WikiProject Rapid Transit, and the NYC subway article, rated a B-Class article mostly for lack of citations, I thought that it would make sense to summarize the history section and created a "History of Link Light Rail" page. Alexseattle (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article and as a result, it is going to focus more on the history of Link Light Rail than it is going to focus on the summarization of the lines. As far as being longer than the comparable sections in the NYC Subway article and BART section... If you'll notice the rest of those articles are also much, much longer than the current article. NYC has 33kb of readable prose, while BART has 36kb of readable prose.. This article currently has less than 10. As I said.. Unless someone is going to do a serious expansion of the rest of the article, then this article simply is not large enough to justify having a child article created from it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed working on a restructure of the page. But I want to emphasize that just because a page isn't very long doesn't mean you should have a history section that takes up more than half the page just for the sake of making the page longer. The most important thing here is not making the page longer, but making it more readable. Alexseattle (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?

I am finishing up an overhaul to this page, and am planning on nominating it for Good Article status. Does anyone have any suggestions to get it there?

Thanks,

-- Alexseattle (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Route Map

I would like to change the route map in the infobox back from the to-scale one to a wiki-style diagram. Although the current map is very stylish, it is too large for the page, and the font for the station names is too small to be readable. Also, having the wiki-style diagram enables the stations to be wiki-linked to their own pages. If no one objects within the next few days, I'll change it. -- Alexseattle (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, the latest version of that map has a few errors in it. IDS/C station is incorrectly named Union Station and Othello Station is in the wrong location (should be further south). Oranviri (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Perhaps a more geographically accurate map could go near the route description sections of the Central Link and Tacoma Link pages, but, in light of its geographic and cartographic errors, we should definately change it back to Wikipedia's standarsd. YB3 (t) 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a (self made) geographically accurate map of the Link light rail routes with approved and planned extensions. at [2] I also have a to scale linear diagram of Central Link at [3] Oranviri (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)