|
→CAHSR Article Version 2.0: Reply
|
→CAHSR Article Version 2.0: Reply
|
||
Line 577:
:::::I assumed that from the placement of his comments that he was referring to what I said. Otherwise he should have bumped up the indentation. (So, I will do that, based on the reasonableness of your assumption.)
:::::As to its overall readability, I found the first half readable, but the second half got bogged down in extraneous detail (such as, for example, the financing table I referred to in my comments, and too much detail re annoying lawsuits). I'm not saying that this information should be thrown away, but rather belongs in an "archive" (which is basically what the History of California High-Speed Rail sub-article is). [[User:Robert92107|Robert92107]] ([[User talk:Robert92107|talk]]) 22:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::I do agree that the version is generally too long. We're still working on paring things down. <span style='color: #FFFFFF;background-color: #FFD700;font-color: #000000;'>[[User:Shannon1|'''Shannon''']]</span> <small>[ [[User talk:Shannon1|Talk]] ]</small> 16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I believe that XavierItzm may have meant to indent by one fewer level, as I agree that it doesn't seem like they were replying to you, rather to DracaenaGuianensis. [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:The more I look at the Project Status map for March 2024, the more problems I see in it. Some of the colors don't have enough difference so it's unclear, thus it looks like construction is completed on the central section when it's not. Also, Caltrain electrification seems to be in engineering design! Yes, these are minor, but a graphical display like this needs to have better design.
| |||