# Talk:Northgate station (Sound Transit)

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northgate Transit Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 08:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be giving this article a Review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 08:41, 12 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: 
A-OK. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

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: 
Such a pleasure to Review an article and find no referencing problems. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Straightforward article/ Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
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: 

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) 21:09, 12 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: 
Thank goodness for Sounder Bruce!  HIs photos are a real help. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I am going to do a couple more deep proofreading/readthroughs to see if there's any issues I might have missed.  Pending the finding of any problems, I'll probably be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This article fulfills all the GA criteria.  Going forward the only improvements I could suggest would be to flesh out the notability claims in the lead and to see if there are any sources that refer to the community reaction - good/bad - to the Transit Center & its construction. Shearonink (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The PSBJ claimed in June 2015 that Mortenson was selected as contractor. The articles on Absher's contract do not mention Moretnson. SounderBruce 04:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The 8th reference is incorrect. Fix it.
(12/8/82 seattle times page F1 has nothing about transit centers. Give the correct page.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenrobinette (talk • contribs) 04:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC) 

Looking at NewsBank, page F1 does in fact have this story. SounderBruce 05:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)