Website Down?

As of the timestamp on my signature, Sound Transit's website [1] is sending people to a Network Solutions "parking page". I have a screen capture of that on my blog [2] along with comments from fellow bloggers. Any ideas as to what's happening? I don't want to remove any ST links from this article since I think this problem is only temporary in nature. --RaggieSoft (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet numbers

Here's a good reference; pages 119 and 20

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/SIP/2009DraftSIP.pdf

~ 69.91.164.149 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Results from public records request

I got this info back from ST on a public records request, but it doesn't seem to jive with any other data. Anybody able to confirm any of the changes?

Sounder Commuter Rail
Mfg Model Length Passengers Purchased Retired Qty Fleet Numbers
EMD F59PHI, 3000 horsepower 58'-7" NA 1999 in service 11[1] 901-902
2000 in service 903-906
2001 in service 907-911
Bombardier Bi-Level Cab Car 85' 136 (seated) 2000 in service 18[1] 101 - 111
2003 in service 301-307
Bombardier Bi-Level Coach 85' 140 (seated) 2000 in service 40[1] 201 - 214
2002 in service 215-240
2003 in service 401-410

~ Atomic Taco (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Sounder Commuter Rail Train Specifications". Sound Transit. Retrieved 2007-06-28.

This page desperately needs a system map

true 67.204.153.57 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox public transit vs government agency

This article currently uses infobox government agency, with the rationale that the public transit infobox should be used only on the subpages (Link light rail, Sounder commuter rail, Sound Transit Express). I disagree, and am wondering where other editors stand. Articles about other public transit authorities throughout the US tend to use infobox public transit on the main page, including MTA (New York), MBTA (Boston), TriMet (Portland), Metro (Los Angeles), etc. Infobox public transit on the main page can include pertinent info such as system-wide ridership and a concise list of all the transit modes operated under the agency's jurisdiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweymouth (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweymouth: I was going off WMATA, the only regional transit agency to reach GA status on the English Wikipedia. Like Sound Transit, it operates on a multi-jurisdictional compact and functions as an independent entity moreso than the likes of MTA, MBTA and LA Metro. SounderBruce 23:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Sound Transit

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sound Transit's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Projects":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Sound Transit 3 in two section

I am currently translating this page to Chinese. As I am translating, I found out that summary of Sound Transit 3 appear in both History and Expansion. My suggestion is to remove the Sound Transit 3 part in Extension since summary of Sound Transit 3 in History section is has more information. If no one disagree, I will start combine the two section to one under History section. Please feel free to leave a comment if you think this is unnecessary and if possible, provide a reason. Thanks! - VulpesVulpes825 06:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try and haphazardly merge anything. Having some repetition is fine if the sections are differentiated enough. The article will undergo a fairly major restructuring soon, as I am preparing to bring it up to GA standards. SounderBruce 07:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will then stop the current translation and wait for the revised version. Thanks! VulpesVulpes825 08:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red-Line Name removed

Sound Transit announced they were discontinuing the use of the term Red-Line in reference to the current Link Light Rail line, citing concerns over the term's association with the historical discriminatory housing practice. Suggest the section be edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipoliwog (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until a new name is announced, it should be left unchanged. The corresponding article at Red Line (Sound Transit) has been updated and will be moved when the time comes. There are also a lot of underlying templates that need to be updated (again), so it should be done with care. SounderBruce 23:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 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:Sound Transit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 08:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 02:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I will take on this review! (Disclosure: this is part of a review swap with the nominator.) I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the prose up until the "Organization" station but need to take a break now; I'll look at the rest as I can. All my concerns look minor and very resolvable so far. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished evaluating all the criteria! I just have two small concerns from the source check that should be addressed, so this article should be good to go soon. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

  • named "Sound Move", was approved in November 1996. ST began operating -- this confusingly skips over the transition from "Sound Move" to "Sound Transit". Unless "Sound Move" is just the bus service? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 locomotives for Sounder I wikilinked "locomotive" but I am no train expert, so if it has a more specific meaning in context please retarget the link ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good to me.
  • The article is inconsistent about hyphenating "park and ride" ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harmonized use of "park and ride"
  • The main "Services" section says there are 319 buses for the Sound Transit Express, but "Sound Transit Express" subsection says 307 buses ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, the sources differ because of some counting oversights. Going with the more consistent one.
  • The image licenses all check out. Thanks for taking so many of these yourself! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels a little odd that there is a map of a proposed 1970 route, but no maps of the current routes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking to get this done; my GIS skills are rusty and I don't really think I can whip up a good interactive map, but I can promise it will be added eventually.
  • This feels like too much info for one sentence, can you break it down? It waned in importance as railroads were constructed around Puget Sound and eventually supplemented by electric streetcar and interurban services that were introduced as early as 1884 and grew in the early 20th century to serve a growing number of passenger commuters ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pared down and split by a semicolon.
  • Ditto this one: The regional water quality agency, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), led planning of the network and took over operations of the Seattle Transit System and a suburban company in January 1973 following the approval of King County voters in a September 1972 special election.. Can the special election be cut...? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pared down and split by a semicolon.
  • This is a choppy read, with subject & verb so far apart: The surface sections of the route through Rainier Valley, where a more expensive tunnel was rejected, and Tukwila were criticized -- would it be accurate to say "Earlier meetings criticised the surface sections of the route through Rainier Valley and Tukwila, where a more expensive tunnel was rejected due to..." ? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reordered.
  • There are a few places where I boldly did some streamlining myself. Keep in mind that this is a summary of the whole history of the whole transit system -- it's OK if we gloss over things like Joni Earl being only interim CEO of Sound Transit from Jan to June 2001 before being the permanent CEO. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I couldn't quite keep myself from writing about everything I could; eventually, this will get moved around to the appropriate subarticles as those are expanded and written.
  • but also eliminated a station on First Hill that was deemed a risk to securing federal funding. -- was having the station a risk, or was eliminating the station deemed a risk? If the latter, this sentence needs revision ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a case of the former, but I tried to make it a bit clearer.
  • Would a "main article" link for Sound Transit 2 (like the one for Sound Transit 2) be appropriate? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was established under the authority of the Washington State Legislature and governed by Revised Code of Washington chapters 81.104 and 81.112 -- this implies it was governed by those chapters and therefore implies that it's no longer governed by them; change to "and is governed" if that's not accurate? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • The "District and subareas" section is another place where a future version of the article would be improved with a map; I'm really struggling to picture this! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a cite error for #34: "The named reference TDP was invoked but never defined"
  • I don't see any red flags for sourcing from just looking at the list of cited sources. For a closer source check, I used a random number generator to pick cites 78, 122, 214, 219, 229, 241, 291, 296, 298, and 317 as numbered in this diff.
    • Verified without close paraphrasing: 78, 122, 214, 219, 229, 241, 291, 298. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, 317 (""Sound Transit repairs Federal Way murals...") says that STart has spent $54 million from 1998-2023 commissioning art -- this is not the same as having a collection valued at over $54 million, especially if some of the art consists of temporary murals during construction! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig pings a few high similarity scores, but it's just a lot of long organization names; no concerns re: copyvio. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 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.

Did you know nomination

A Sound Transit light rail train
A Sound Transit light rail train
Improved to Good Article status by SounderBruce (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 251 past nominations.

SounderBruce 03:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Newly promoted GA with content meeting all the criterias. Image is OK, and QPQ provided. Hook verification checked except for ALT3 when I ran out of free articles so AGF on that. Approving ALT0, ALT2 and ALT3 for now. I must say I was a bit hesitant to approve ALT0 since, well, it's COVID, so a drop is kind of expected, but given that few other cities could match the 67% (London was the only one I found that had similar figures; Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo & HK all saw less than 1/2) I'll give it a pass. For ALT1 I think the bike racks part is interesting, but accessibility part maybe not so much (there's places like Singapore that also have 100% accessible public transport), so it might be better to drop that part. S5A-0043🚎(Leave a message here) 08:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound_Transit
No tags for this post.