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.
Sorry for being slow to continue this review. I'd rather wait until the GOCE copyeditor is done with their work before moving into the prose side of things. SounderBruce05:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)reply
@
SounderBruce: I believe he marked the CE as done on the GOCE request page, although I reverted some edits as he omitted some information that gave value to the article, as well as added upon other edits. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
16:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Lead and infobox
"Grade-separated" does not belong in the character paramemter. I assume you mean elevated guideways or short bridges/underpasses, which would be covered by "at-grade and elevated".
The uMap citation for the length is not a
reliable source and the fact sheet does not list the entire length (which goes against
WP:SYNTH). These need to be replaced.
@
SounderBruce: sorry I've been unresponsive as the progress on the review of this page had gotten so slow that it ended up overlapping with my travels in Europe. What more did you want for the lead? The Red Line's history is relatively short and sweet. Any suggestions? --
Truflip99 (
talk)
08:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Prior services from downtown to the airport should be moved up to the beginning of the Background section, along with some background on the airport at the time of planning.
Sorry about the delay. I've had this review on the back-burner for a while and I hope to get this done soon.
"on a section of track originally built for the Blue Line;" should be "shared with the Blue Line". Save the detail for the history paragraph of the lead.
"a right-of-way" doesn't sound quite right. Perhaps including right-of-way reserved for future transit, which was later realized as the I-205 Transitway
I did not actually suggest using the old version in the text, but rather just added the note (to avoid reader confusion) after you chose to use the old form in any sentences with pre-mid-2002 (date of Tri-Met's small name change) information. However, your choice to do so seemed logical to me, which is why I
added a brief explanation, rather than converting "Tri-Met" to "TriMet" in all cases. Also, I have always felt strongly that "Tri-Met", with hyphen, should always be retained where it appears in the titles of citations, as removing the hyphen there would be changing history and a disservice to readers. Bottom line: I guess I sort of disagree with SounderBruce's position and feel that your (Truflip99's) handling of it is logical, but I'll let you two decide what is best.
SJ Morg (
talk)
09:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm going to retain it. IMO, it's not SO confusing that it compromises readability. It's literally the same name except with a hyphen. It would be more confusing to not have it in the prose, while retaining it in the citation I think. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"Regional transit plans had already began calling for a light rail extension" needs to be re-ordered.
The ridership chart isn't necessary, unless you add data going back to 2001
I would like to retain it as I think ridership statistics are always valuable information. It certainly doesn't hurt to have it. Unfortunately, TriMet did not provide individual line stats until 2016. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
19:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SounderBruce: I have addressed all of the above requested edits. Not to rush or anything, but I would like to finish this up a little sooner with your assistance, so I can move on to other articles. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Truflip99: The changes look good, but I would definitely like to see the Tri-Met/TriMet issue resolved without having to use the notes system, and the ridership table's removal. It can easily be explained in prose. SounderBruce20:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SounderBruce: I'll give in to both, but I can't guarantee I won't add the table in the future. 2018 numbers are due to come out this week. And then there are the future numbers. I guess I'm just really failing to understand why it needs to be omitted. Is there an MOS thing that says we can't have the ridership table? Anyway, Done. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
While it's not in MOS, having such a short table is rather pointless until there's five or so entries. Anyway, this article has finally passed. SounderBruce02:15, 8 January 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.
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.
Sorry for being slow to continue this review. I'd rather wait until the GOCE copyeditor is done with their work before moving into the prose side of things. SounderBruce05:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)reply
@
SounderBruce: I believe he marked the CE as done on the GOCE request page, although I reverted some edits as he omitted some information that gave value to the article, as well as added upon other edits. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
16:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Lead and infobox
"Grade-separated" does not belong in the character paramemter. I assume you mean elevated guideways or short bridges/underpasses, which would be covered by "at-grade and elevated".
The uMap citation for the length is not a
reliable source and the fact sheet does not list the entire length (which goes against
WP:SYNTH). These need to be replaced.
@
SounderBruce: sorry I've been unresponsive as the progress on the review of this page had gotten so slow that it ended up overlapping with my travels in Europe. What more did you want for the lead? The Red Line's history is relatively short and sweet. Any suggestions? --
Truflip99 (
talk)
08:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Prior services from downtown to the airport should be moved up to the beginning of the Background section, along with some background on the airport at the time of planning.
Sorry about the delay. I've had this review on the back-burner for a while and I hope to get this done soon.
"on a section of track originally built for the Blue Line;" should be "shared with the Blue Line". Save the detail for the history paragraph of the lead.
"a right-of-way" doesn't sound quite right. Perhaps including right-of-way reserved for future transit, which was later realized as the I-205 Transitway
I did not actually suggest using the old version in the text, but rather just added the note (to avoid reader confusion) after you chose to use the old form in any sentences with pre-mid-2002 (date of Tri-Met's small name change) information. However, your choice to do so seemed logical to me, which is why I
added a brief explanation, rather than converting "Tri-Met" to "TriMet" in all cases. Also, I have always felt strongly that "Tri-Met", with hyphen, should always be retained where it appears in the titles of citations, as removing the hyphen there would be changing history and a disservice to readers. Bottom line: I guess I sort of disagree with SounderBruce's position and feel that your (Truflip99's) handling of it is logical, but I'll let you two decide what is best.
SJ Morg (
talk)
09:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm going to retain it. IMO, it's not SO confusing that it compromises readability. It's literally the same name except with a hyphen. It would be more confusing to not have it in the prose, while retaining it in the citation I think. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"Regional transit plans had already began calling for a light rail extension" needs to be re-ordered.
The ridership chart isn't necessary, unless you add data going back to 2001
I would like to retain it as I think ridership statistics are always valuable information. It certainly doesn't hurt to have it. Unfortunately, TriMet did not provide individual line stats until 2016. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
19:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SounderBruce: I have addressed all of the above requested edits. Not to rush or anything, but I would like to finish this up a little sooner with your assistance, so I can move on to other articles. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Truflip99: The changes look good, but I would definitely like to see the Tri-Met/TriMet issue resolved without having to use the notes system, and the ridership table's removal. It can easily be explained in prose. SounderBruce20:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SounderBruce: I'll give in to both, but I can't guarantee I won't add the table in the future. 2018 numbers are due to come out this week. And then there are the future numbers. I guess I'm just really failing to understand why it needs to be omitted. Is there an MOS thing that says we can't have the ridership table? Anyway, Done. --
Truflip99 (
talk)
21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
While it's not in MOS, having such a short table is rather pointless until there's five or so entries. Anyway, this article has finally passed. SounderBruce02:15, 8 January 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.