Talk:Red and Purple Modernization Project/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: AlphaBeta135 (talk · contribs) 20:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: AlphaBetaGamma (talk · contribs) 10:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm starting the review by the end of this weekend. I don't have too much reviews counted yet, so I might ping IAWW, Sounder, or Icepinner for a 2nd opinion if I get stuck. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@AlphaBeta135: just a note that I want to ask you to ping me, or edit the review page so I know what point exactly to update. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4)

Lead

-The WP:LEAD feels like it is not representing some sections enough, especially the "Early planning", which is not mentioned. I had to write a lead twice as large as this for it to cover all the (major) sections on an article slightly smaller than this one.

-MOS:LEADCITE issue with the citation in the lead, pretty sure that can also exist in the article body

Background

-Nothing to say here

Early planning

-Why not just say "Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)"?

Phase One construction

-Stage A and Stage B came out of nowhere with little context

Future phases

-Lack of federal funding, right?

Sources

Formatting (Criterion 2a)

-Nothing to say here

Reliability (Criterion 2b)

- Chicago YIMBY is probably not a RS per this?

- This seems to be a blog site?

Appears to be resolved

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d)

-9: While I thought about questioning the source, I'm not doing that since at least it seems to have some sort of a proper factchecking process.

-12: Nothing about the rapid transit, the source talks about freights AGF on offline sources

-21 and 22:

-31: inaccessible due to broken paywall in webarchive, unfortunate. However, I reviewed 30 and found a typo so I fixed that. The source was the typo Reviewed 32 as well, and I was able to verify the information.

-38:

-46:

-57:

-61:

-70:

Awaiting response on #12, and we should be good

Copyvio (Criterion 2d)

- scan here. No problem found

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b)

-Seems okay to me

Stable (Criterion 5)

-Nothing to say here

Media

Tags (Criterion 6a)

-Everything appears to be tagged with free license

Captions (Criterion 6b)

-Nothing to say here

Close

Assuming good faith for the offline sources, I'm closing this as a pass. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.