Talk:Northwest Seaport Alliance

Northwest Seaport Alliance 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: April 11, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Northwest Seaport Alliance appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 February 2017, and was viewed approximately 991 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the rival ports of Seattle and Tacoma merged to form the Northwest Seaport Alliance in 2014 because of increased competition from ports in British Columbia?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northwest Seaport Alliance.

Wikipedia

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Washington / Seattle Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review[edit]

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:Northwest Seaport Alliance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead/Infobox
"The combined port authority is the fourth largest cargo port in the United States and by container volume." I don't see where this is cited in the article.
Added a mention in the formation sub-section, while also correcting the rank.

The region parameter of the infobox is "Puget Sound region". Is the word "region" needed?
The Puget Sound refers to the body of water, so I think having the region appended is important. It's similar to saying San Francisco Bay vs. San Francisco Bay Area.
Makes sense. Thanks.

History
"During the Great Recession of the late 2000s, Seattle regained its title as the larger of the ports..." Did it regain because of the Great Recession? Was the title swap due solely to the Masersk merger? Did it lure shipping lines other than Masersk away from Tacoma, or were the shipping lines at Seattle just not hit as hard? If details are available, they should be included. If not, that's ok.
The Masersk merger and move to Seattle helped push Seattle past Tacoma. I've removed the recession reference since I can't find a direct connection in any of my sources.

"The consolidation of shipping lines in the 1990s, favoring centralized distribution centers in fewer ports, and merging of the state's railroad system..." I can't tell if these are three factors, or if the first two go together. Either way, consolidation needs to be changed to consolidating to match tense. If the two go together, the comma after 1990s should be removed and the part reworded like "the 1990s led to a growing preference for centralized". If they are separate, the word of should be inserted after favoring.

"influenced the two ports to discuss collaboration or a potential merger." Year? The first factors is from "the 1990s", but next sentence is set in 2012.
Y Re-ordered the sentence to make things a bit clearer, hopefully. Sounder Bruce 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the Port of Seattle quoted its average cargo rate to be $130,000 per acre, a loss of $35 million in comparison" It's not clear how Seattle's value is a loss compared to a different region, and the source cited doesn't use the word. I think this sentence could be replaced with different information from the same source, specifically that "Port staff have previously estimated that annual revenue from oceangoing cargo, amounting to $130,000 per acre for 500 acres, is reduced by roughly $70,000 per acre, or $35 million, because of rate competition with Tacoma."
Y Re-worked that sentence and hopefully cleared up any confusion.

TEU should link to Twenty-foot equivalent unit at the first mention. Currently, it's not linked until the Cargo section.
Y Done.

Governance
"The alliance is a separate legal entity" Legal entity is already linked in the History section. No need to link a second time.

Y Removed.

Economy
No concerns

Cargo
No concerns

Connections
No concerns

Facilities
No concerns

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I was unable to find a MOS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ports, but the section here is inline with GA-rated articles with similar subjects, such as Port of Albany–Rensselaer
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:
no concerns

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 concerns

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Strongest match on earwig is 11.5%, caused by common phrases ("state and local taxes", "The ports of Seattle and Tacoma"). No concerns
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I'm not overly familiar with the subject, but nothing is obviously omitted in comparison to other similar GA subjects.

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:
very stable in recent weeks. No sign of edit warring or vandalism.
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:
rationales provided

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are relevant. Captions for two images in the body are good to go. Lack of caption for the infobox is fine, but it needs some WP:ALTTEXT indicating what it is.
Alt text has been added.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass pending resolution of notes given above Argento Surfer (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Thanks for the review. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. Sounder Bruce 19:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good. Thanks for the quick responses! Argento Surfer (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2017 (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.