Template:Did you know nominations/Kitsap Fast Ferries

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Alex Shih (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Kitsap Fast Ferries

(

)

... that Seattle's passenger-only ferries, blamed for beach erosion, were forced to slow down because of a class-action lawsuit? Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
- ALT1:... that passenger-only ferries from the Seattle region were loaned to the San Francisco Bay Area after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake? Source: The Seattle Times (December 20, 1989); alternative online source

Reviewed: Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bangkok

Created by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 06:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC).

Article created with basics on June 15 and expanded to substantially exceed DYK standards within seven days. The hook is interesting and its story checks out based on the Seattle Pi source provided and others ([1], [2]). Overall the article looks very good and I have just a few questions and comments for the nominator.

1. What about the name of the service itself? I see some pages referring to these as "Kitsap fast ferries" in lower case. Kitsaptransit.com uses Kitsap Fast Ferries prominently on this page, but a lot of its materials call it the Bremerton Fast Ferry; the presentation linked in the article uses "Kitsap Transit’s Fast-Ferry Plan"; and elsewhere it's called the "Kitsap Transit Fast Ferry" or "Kitsap Transit fast ferry" (with lowercase). It's not a big big deal but

a. Have you considered the different article naming possibilities and settled on this one as the best?
b. As the service was previously called the "fast ferry", would it be more correct for the article to represent the upcoming service as a continuation of the Kitsap fast ferry, rather than a new service with historical antecedents? (Especially given that in the hook we are treating them as essentially the same ferry service?)

2. It seems that following complaints in 1990 the ferries were slowed by WSF voluntarily rather than "forcibly".
3. Can you add a little clarification about the provocatively-redlinked Initiative 695? The first two sources refer to "Referendum 51" (which may have enabled I696) but this isn't the story told in the third source, which comes from Kitsap Transit.
4. You might consider wikilinking hydrofoil.
5. "express us service" -> "express bus service" (by the way, "timed to ferry departures and arrivals"? sounds nice...)

Well done; thank you for this contribution. groupuscule (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Groupuscule: Thanks for the thorough review. The official name of the service is "Kitsap Fast Ferries", according to the June 15 press release; I didn't really consider other names, since the proposal has been known as "Kitsap fast ferry service" in the local media for a few years now. I've fixed the other issues you've raised, including explanations of I-695 and Referendum 51 using existing references. Sounder Bruce 21:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Approved, preferring the primary hook. Looks good. The images added by User:RickyCourtney are nice as well, and confirm Mr. Bruce's conclusion about the correct name for the service. groupuscule (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)