Wikipedia:Peer review/Link Light Rail/archive1

Link Light Rail

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article for months and would like to see it achieve GA status. I would love to know if there's anything else that can be done to make it better.

Thanks, Alexseattle (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting and generally well-written. It seems factually accurate and verifiable. It's certainly broad in coverage, neutral, and stable. Two images licenses are suspect, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

• The disambiguation links tool finds a half-dozen suspicious links in the article such as Beacon Hill. You can run this tool on any article to check the dabs. The tool lives here.

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead can almost do that, but I'd recommend expanding it a bit to include something about the rolling stock, the Tacoma Link extensions, and a few more details. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the text sections.

Images

• Image:Light Rail Train Testing.jpg is licensed as cc-sa-by-2.5, but when I check the source page at Flickr, the photographer has reserved all rights. It's likely that the uploader, who is not the photographer, didn't realize that not all Flickr photos have Creative Commons licenses. Unless you can convince the photographer to re-license it for free use, it can't be used legally on Wikipedia.

• Image:Taclinkdome.JPG also has a license problem in that it doesn't clearly identify the source. It's not clear that the uploader is the same person as the photographer, and 57 kb is awfully small for a self-taken photo. So where does the image come from? How can a fact-checker be certain that it does not violate copyright?

• If you have a digital camera or can borrow one, and if you live in or near Seattle, you can probably replace the two problem images with your own, quite possibly better, images.

• WP:MOSNUM#Chronological items says, "12-hour clock times end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm, which are spaced (2:30 p.m. or 2:30 pm, not 2:30p.m. or 2:30pm). A hard space (see above) is advisable: 2:30 pm." The Headway chart should be revised accordingly.

• The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short paragraphs or sections. The solutions are to expand or merge. For example, the first paragraph of the existing "Headways" section is only one sentence long. It could easily be merged with the paragraph below it. For another example, the "Tacoma Link" subsection consists of a single sentence. It could be combined with "Central Link", and the head could be changed to "Fares".

• MOS:HEAD says in part, "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections." Thus, you need to find a way to avoid repeating "Tacoma Link" and "Central Link" in the subheads and to generally make the heads and subheads as distinct from one another as possible.

• In the "Current Lines" section, you have quite a few quantities that are expressed in imperial units. MOS:CONVERSIONS says to convert these to metric as well. Thus, "Construction is under way on a new 14-mile Central Link light rail line" should say, "Construction is under way on a new 14-mile (23 km) Central Link light rail line". I like to use the {{convert}} template to do the math and the preferred spellings and abbreviations. The adj=on parameter is the one that adds the hyphen, where needed. Alternatively, you can do the conversions with a calculator and enter everything by hand.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)