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 (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Kew Gardens 613 ( talk · contribs) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Lead
Like in the review for
MAX Red Line, I would space out light rail in the lead to
Early proposals
Revival and construction
Planned extension to Clark County, Washington
Service
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good to go on this point. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Infobox
Early proposals
Service
Planned extension to Clark County, Washington
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Great newspaper references! |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
Route Source 66 does not state that there is a grade crossing on North Argyle Street.
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Looks good. I have to take your word that you did not plagiarize from the newspapers that are not online. I trust you. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
Early proposals
Opening and realignment
Planned extension to Clark County, Washington
Route
Ridership
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No issues. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No issues. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | This also looks good. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | This looks good. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Hello Truflip99 ( talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
These are not needed for the review, but would help it out.
@ Kew Gardens 613: I believe I have addressed all of the issues you pointed out. Please let me know if there is any else. I can't thank you enough for the extremely thorough review work you put into this. Thank you!! -- Truflip99 ( talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
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 (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Kew Gardens 613 ( talk · contribs) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Lead
Like in the review for
MAX Red Line, I would space out light rail in the lead to
Early proposals
Revival and construction
Planned extension to Clark County, Washington
Service
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good to go on this point. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Infobox
Early proposals
Service
Planned extension to Clark County, Washington
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Great newspaper references! |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
Route Source 66 does not state that there is a grade crossing on North Argyle Street.
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Looks good. I have to take your word that you did not plagiarize from the newspapers that are not online. I trust you. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
Early proposals
Opening and realignment
Planned extension to Clark County, Washington
Route
Ridership
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No issues. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No issues. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | This also looks good. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | This looks good. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Hello Truflip99 ( talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
These are not needed for the review, but would help it out.
@ Kew Gardens 613: I believe I have addressed all of the issues you pointed out. Please let me know if there is any else. I can't thank you enough for the extremely thorough review work you put into this. Thank you!! -- Truflip99 ( talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)