Talk:Route 41 (King County Metro)

Route 41 (King County Metro) 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: March 21, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Buses Low‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Seattle 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 - Seattle.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Route 41 (King County Metro)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2017 (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:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Nicely-done, Lead section lays out notability claims, everything else is according to the WP:MOS guidelines for those article parameters. Shearonink (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:

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:
The references all look good - valid and up-to-date. Shearonink (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Statements that need references have them. Shearonink (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No problems found - good job. Shearonink (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Yay, no edit wars! Shearonink (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Everything has the proper permissions. Shearonink (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Relevant and explanatory. Shearonink (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Giving this article some more readthroughs over the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the article several times today, in my opinion it fulfills the WP:GA Criteria. This is a straightforward well-referenced article about a factual non-controversial subject. There aren't any edit-wars or POV content. Going forward, the article will need to be kept updated with changes to the route and also any future news-coverage about the associated coming/planned Link light rail changes (community controversies? cost overruns? etc.) should be included. Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Thanks for the review, Shearonink. Future changes to this article will not include light rail costs and controversies, as that is outside of the scope (part of the criteria) and would be covered instead on the light rail articles. Sounder Bruce 23:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I misspoke there, should have used more precise language. I was thinking more along the lines of when the light-rail does come in ca 2020, that people who were used to the old bus route will have an opinion (pro or con) about the changes to the bus route itself plus the route itself will change since the tunnel will be reserved for the light-rail. Thanks for the correction. Shearonink (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]