Talk:Silver Line (Washington Metro)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The first sentence is very long, could some of the information be spun off in a second sentence or something. - done
The lead tends to overfocus on why the line is being built, and less on the actual properties of the line. There is for instance no indication of when construction started or when the project is scheduled for completion. - done
'Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority' is linked twice in the lead. - I think it is gone
Should be 12th-largest in the 'country'; a 'nation' is a group of people with a common culture, while a 'country' is a political entity. - done
No mention of the length of the line, both the Siver Line as a whole, and of the Dulles extension. - done
No mention of the phases in the lead, and not really in the history section either. - done
Parts of the history section are unreferenced. - done
In particular the 'Tysons Corner tunnel dispute', the paragraphs are very short. It would be better to merge them somewhat. - done
'The tunnel controversy, however, was not yet over.' is completely redundant, just leave it out. -done
'cost-effectiveness' should be linked. - done
What or who is 'Tysons Tunnel, Inc.'? - done
Ratings ("medium-low" and "medium") should be lower-case. - done
The information contained in 'Contract award controversy' should be in the history. Controversy is often better dealt with in history sections then stand-alone sections. -done
'Pier support' lacks references. - done
'Toll increases' seems very POV. Instead you could create a section called 'financing' and include all the financial information there. - done. This has drawn a lot of attention and press coverage.
Normally it is sufficient to include the list of station in the list of stations-article, but if you want to include them, please put them in a table to ease readability.

Generally, WikiProject Washington Metro has had a separate article for each line, e.g., Red Line (Washington Metro), which contains a station list for that line. I am following that format. Do you envision a one-column table?

If you want to include a list of stations, that is fine. As far as I can see, this is the first GAN for a Washington Metro line, so don't worry too much about what the other articles have. Already there is two sets of information in the list, the name and "notes". I would expect all the information from the List of Washington Metro stations. Either do the list all the way, or leave it out. Arsenikk -done^(talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the map is rather trivial. - given that the map is up for deletion, I am taking it out for now. It just appeared a few days ago.
- Hm, the map itself could have stayed, but if it's up for deletion.... Hm. And looking at the existing maps, I do see the problem that was being discussed as I can't just add a line, I would have to redo everything. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a line should contain some information on the route, see for instance Ring Line (Oslo) and Sognsvann Line. - done
What is the service level going to be? What will the headway and travel time be? What type of rolling stock will be used? - done
'List of Washington Metro stations' is in the navbox, so it shouldn't be in the 'see also' section. - done
There are several dead links. - done
'Chapter 560 of the 1995 Acts of the Assembly.' is a very confusing ref, as it does not make it possible to identify the source. What assembly is this? Who and when was it published? -added Commonwealth of Virginia for redundant clarity. This is a standard way to cite a law.
Some of the links lack accessdate. - done
If File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg is in the public domain, why is it also marked as a non-free poster? - dispute as to whether WMATA is a federal agency for copyright law purposes.

Placing on hold. There might be a few more issues, but these are the major things. Overall, I would like to see some work be done on improving the lead, it is rather messy and little focused. I would also like to see a restructuring of the sections. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I though of/in the new parts see a few more issues:

Are there any prediction for ridership/number of travelers? - done
This article covers the whole Silver Line, not just the new part, so there needs to be a summary of the history of the construction of the other parts of the line. - done
'vehicle traffic' by which you mean automotive traffic? Buses and trains are also vehicles. - cars, trucks and buses. There are no railroads in Tysons Corner. Done
I've written quite a number of railway/metro line articles now, and I feel the "ideal" way to portray the information is through four sections: route, service, history and future. Now, I know there will always be other ways of doing things, and that both service and future are not relevant here, but I have a hard time seeing why there needs to be a 'pier support' section. Can't it go straight into the history section? The sections on financing and Phase II are fine.
As a reader, the term Phase II is not well defined, and comes more as an afterthought. The dilemma is sort of that right now Phase I is being built (so it is "current", while Phase II is "future", so I don't mind its own section, but there is no mention of this, neither in the lead or the description section. - done

I agree that once the line opens in 2013, all sections should be reorganized, perhaps along the lines that you describe. Right now we have the near future and the far future with no service. (Current service is covered in the Orange Line article.) Phases I and II are defined in the second paragraph of lead. Racepacket (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably been more than picky now, so congratulations with a good article. Hope to see more of the lines at GAN soon :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]