Talk:Convention Place station/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: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be taking this review. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 01:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
review
[edit]- is there any passenger numbers for this station?
- There's only vague numbers from old newspaper articles. Data from the bus agency only breaks it down by route, not station/stop.
- Also please include the route map of the DSTT in the infobox.
- Why would this be necessary? For the most part, other station articles don't include route maps.
- "Convention place is a bus station in the dstt". I'm pretty sure the photo shows the station in open air. Could you clarify?
- It's one of the portals of the tunnel; added some clarification in the Station layout section.
- then maybe change the in to a on
- @1.02 editor: That wouldn't make grammatical sense ("in the tunnel" vs. "on the tunnel"). I switched around the phrasing to remove instances of "in the tunnel", so it should be clearer now. SounderBruce 01:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- then maybe change the in to a on
- It's one of the portals of the tunnel; added some clarification in the Station layout section.
- "In 1984, a site one block south of the station..." is the station mentioned the current station or the planned one.
- Fixed.
- "excavation of the... and was temporarily backfilled during the Christmas shopping season" Why?
- Added the main reason (automobile access)
- "construction of the exit ramp to olive way and electrical substation..." could you fix the sentence?
- Fixed.
- could you do away with the station layout diagram as per WP:NOTGUIDE?
- Station layout diagrams are pretty standard across station articles, including those that passed FAC and GAN. I don't think it violates NOTGUIDE any more than a list of cities in a state or a list of sculptures in a museum would.
- see this
- I don't see how a short discussion for a local project would justify removing the table here. It should be discussed at WT:TRAINS or another venue with a global audience (or at least at the national level, e.g. WP:USSTATION) to establish standards. SounderBruce 01:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- In this case it can be kept, but should be removed once I get consensus for it to be removed.
- I don't see how a short discussion for a local project would justify removing the table here. It should be discussed at WT:TRAINS or another venue with a global audience (or at least at the national level, e.g. WP:USSTATION) to establish standards. SounderBruce 01:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- see this
- Station layout diagrams are pretty standard across station articles, including those that passed FAC and GAN. I don't think it violates NOTGUIDE any more than a list of cities in a state or a list of sculptures in a museum would.
- art and architecture-> could you only focus on architecture in the station and not the surrounding?
- The plaza is part of the station.
- Light and power poles......written by Seattle high school students. Please town down as it is starting to sound promotional.
- The first part is a simple description and the second part is a valid credit. I don't see how these are un-encyclopedic or can be considered straight advertising.
hold
[edit]Sorry for the delay in the review as I had some last minute stuff to do. I have identified some issues in the article, and you'll have 7 days to fix them.1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 00:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- @1.02 editor: Fixed some of the points you raised. I left notes where I disagreed, given my prior experience with station FAs/GAs. SounderBruce 00:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- @1.02 editor: What's the status of this review? SounderBruce 01:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, passing. Would edit talk page when I get to a com. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 02:38, 26 March 2018 (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.