Jump to content

Talk:Orange Line (Washington Metro)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOrange Line (Washington Metro) 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
March 18, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Random Addition

[edit]

Possibly add that the Orange Line is affectionally called the "Orange Crush", punning the fact the Orange line is overcrowed on weekdays.

Zidel333 05:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go for it. :) :Zidel333 00:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is 2023. I think it should be added now in the History section, mentioning that the "Orange Crush" phenomenon ended when the Silver Line opened (I was gonna add a new section on talk, but then I saw this) Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Orange Line (Washington Metro)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: •Felix• T 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review soon. •Felix• T 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Couple passing suggestions

[edit]

Got a couple suggestions for the article before the reviewer starts, since I have experience in the area. Racepacket, you might want to expand the lead with some history details. Also you might want to source the 2009 Boardings. You might want to add platform design and other stuff (accessibility, ticket machines, etc) to the table.Mitch32(Erie Railroad Information Hog) 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to move the future section above the station listing.Mitch32(Erie Railroad Information Hog) 15:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 Boardings are sourced to fn 19. If the table is a problem, I have no objection to removing it. Each station on the line has its own article describing the station's details. Racepacket (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem? I think the table is too small. I think you need to expand it a bit more.Mitch32(Erie Railroad Information Hog) 02:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Interested editors should comment in the consolidated discussion at Talk:Red Line (Washington Metro)#Requested move 22 January 2024. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Orange Line (Washington Metro)Orange line (Washington Metro) – Lowercase the word “line” per WP:NCCAPS. The word “line is a generic descriptor. 2600:1700:1960:F100:A882:B52C:C11A:62E9 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2024 (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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Red Line (Washington Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]