# Talk:Lynnwood City Center station

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)
(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)

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)

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)

Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? SounderBruce 00:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll take another look. Shearonink (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Very relevant. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
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)

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: 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) 21:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)