# Talk:Tacoma Dome Station

This station is called in all Sound Transit literature "Tacoma Dome Station." The lead calls it this as well. Therefore, this article should be moved to "Tacoma Dome (Sounder station)." -- Alexseattle (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Alexseattle. YB3 (t) 04:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved. Since this is a low-importance stub-class article, we are unlikely to get more consensus than this. YB3 (t) 04:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tacoma Dome Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list, but you can start addressing any points I raise immediately. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Lead
"a Link light rail extension will connect..." - How long will this be once finished? I ask because I'm curious, but also because I think it would bring a sense of scale to the proposal. If it's not definite or a solid source isn't available, that's ok.
It will be about 34 miles from Seattle to Tacoma, with the last segment (a 7-mile extension) opened in 2030. I would rather save this information for the Tacoma Dome Link Extension article, once I get around to writing it.
Fair enough.
History
1200 stall garage in 1994 + 1200 stall garage in 2000 = 2400 stalls, but the infobox says 2,283. I'm guessing this is a rounding error?
Sometime between 2010 and 2012, it seems that it was reduced from 2,410 stalls to the present 2,283. I can't find a definite source or reason why.
Probably some minor remodel.
""iconic face" for an "architectural abomination"." - suggest "for what The News Tribune called an "architectural..."
Done.
"halt the return of Amtrak trains to the bypass until full implementation..." - is there an ETA for this?
So far, the only date is late 2018.
Future
"expansion program, approved by voters " - I don't think this comma's needed.
Removed.
Station layout
Peirce Transit is linked in History and the infobox. This one is WP:OVERLINK
Removed.
Services
Another Pierce Transit link
Removed.
Seattle is linked twice here, but not in History, which is its first use.
Removed.
Sounder commuter rail is overlinked here as well
Removed.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
no concern
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: 
You only link sources like The Seattle Times in their first appearance, but MOS:REPEATLINK says its desirable to link each them in each citation.
I prefer to only link on the first use of a reference, to prevent the reference section from turning into a sea of blue links.
Fair enough.
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: 
no concern
C. It contains no original research: 
no concern
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
no concern - earwig's strongest result (13%) comes from common phrases and multi-word names.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
no concern
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
no concern
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: 
no concern
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Excellent work on this. Pass pending a few minor notes. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Thanks for the review. I have left a few comments above for items that I didn't modify the article for. SounderBruce 19:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick replies! Argento Surfer (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Artwork at the station reflects the areas history with the railroads (Freighthouse Square, for example, was an actual freighthouse for the Milwaukee Road) and the large amount of lumber mills that existed in the area. Art consists of the following:
A footbridge that looks like an old trestle
A dry riverbed with scattered industrial tools and parts around it
Sculptures that look like dust collectors from sawmills
Seats at the station that look like railroad spikes
A clock that displays time by magnetically picking up metal scraps on the hour
SounderBruce 08:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)