Talk:Red and Purple Modernization Project

Red and Purple Modernization Project 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: October 5, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: 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

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 Rapid transit.

GA review

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Passed. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red and Purple Modernization Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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.