Talk:Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Westlake (Link station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The move discussion is now closed. The pages have been moved as appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 14:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roosevelt station (Sound Transit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150319071348/http://www.soundtransit.org:80/Documents/pdf/projects/link/north/roosevelt/FLY_Roosevelt_Station_0712.pdf to http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/link/north/roosevelt/FLY_Roosevelt_Station_0712.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100716140424/http://projects.soundtransit.org/Projects-Home/North-Link/Roosevelt-Station.xml to http://projects.soundtransit.org/Projects-Home/North-Link/Roosevelt-Station.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a WP:GA Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • The contract for tunneling and station construction was awarded to JCM Northlink LLC, a joint venture of Jay Dee, Coluccio, and Michels, for $462 million in 2013.

   The sentence is somewhat confusing. I think the wording/punctuation should be adjusted to something along the lines of "...awarded to JCM Northland LLC (a joint venture of the Jay Dee, Coluccio, and Michels companies) for $462 million in 2013."

   One of the buildings that was demolished is referred to as both "Standard Records" and as "Standard Radio"...which is right?

   These issues have been fixed to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   Date-styles agree with each other, references-citations are in agreement with each other. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Scrupulously researched. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - looks good. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Nice that it included some of the community input that changed the height requirements of the new buildings/new development. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   That image of the Tunnel-boring machine is amazing. Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Doing some more Proofreading-readthroughs to see if I've missed anything - looking good so far. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   I've fixed the two concerns you raised in the "well written" section. Thanks for spotting them both. SounderBruce 22:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   I'll do at least one more readthrough and should be able to finish up within a day or so. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   Nice little article, gave the facts about the construction plus historic background and some human interest. Going forward the only improvements I can think of is to keep the article updated as the construction progresses, especially images and information about the station when it is closer to completion. Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roosevelt station (Sound Transit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170807050437/http://your.kingcounty.gov/ftp/gis/Web/VMC/transportation/GetAround_UDistrictCapitolHill_North_flat-GEO.pdf to http://your.kingcounty.gov/ftp/gis/Web/VMC/transportation/GetAround_UDistrictCapitolHill_North_flat-GEO.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)