Talk:Lynnwood Transit Center

Lynnwood Transit Center has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 24, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Lynnwood Transit Center Multimodal Accessibility Plan (WSDOT, 2016)

Misleading termini[edit]

The routebox at the bottom says this will be part of North Link and that the terminus in one direction is Northgate Station, the terminus in the other direction is University of Washington Station. This is misleading and technically not correct for Lynnwood, since Mountlake Terrace to the south is heading towards both termini, and Alderwood leads to neither. I suggest we should change the Northgate terminus so that it's 164th/Ash Way, or consider everything north of Northgate (including Lynnwood) as part of a separate "extension" line. 71.231.76.242 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Same person as above, different IP now) So the problem is that Lynnwood Station is not actually part of "North Link", it is part of a separate project called the "North Corridor HCT", which runs from Northgate to Lynnwood. We will have to make a new set of templates for the rail succession boxes for this project, and probably a new article and routing template too. If anyone can do this, that would be great, since there seems to be few people interested in working on these articles here. 71.113.38.220 (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The line has apparently ben re-renamed; I've been maintaining the Northgate Link Extension articles a bit, I think stuff is up to date now. — Brianhe (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lynnwood Transit Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Taking a closer look at any possible MOS issues. Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:

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:
@SounderBruce: References #1, #3, & #8 are all either dead or close to it. They will need to be adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References 1 and 3 were fixed (the site was redesigned without redirects after the GAN was submitted); reference 8 isn't dead or likely to die soon, might you have not seen the blurb for the article near the bottom? Sounder Bruce 00:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look. Shearonink (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what was wrong before...sometimes the websites are down for a bit and when the tool is run it just catches that. All is well, carry on. Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool - looks good to go. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Very straightforward. Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Stable, no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
All the permissions are good. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Very relevant. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article that stuck to the facts, well-sourced - nicely-done. Going forward, keeping this article updated with future changes especially the light-rail line coming in - that would be useful. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynnwood Transit Center. 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/20160825190353/http://www.psrc.org/assets/10138/Lynnwood_Transit_Center_SAP.pdf to http://www.psrc.org/assets/10138/Lynnwood_Transit_Center_SAP.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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]