Talk:Brockton station (MBTA)/GA1

GA nomination successful as article has sufficiently improved within reasonable time

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.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a review. Expect initial comments within one or two weeks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the lead and infobox.....

Infobox

When the station's address isn't referenced or even stated anywhere other than here, you need to provide a citation for it. I'm fine with using the MBTA's page for it.
If any more recent figures than 2013/2014 are known, then I'd include those

Lead

Something tells me that MBTA's abbreviation (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) should be established at some point here

More to come later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I cited the address, and put the meaning of MBTA into the lede. Unfortunately, the 2013 ridership data is the most recent available (though I'm hoping for a newer release this year). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early history: I added two refs from the book to support the exact date, and the lack of branches. I previously used the term "significant" not as personal opinion of importance, but of size; I replaced it with "larger" but better wording might be possible. I added a concrete range for the 1880s rebuild - the post-1880 photo series and 1891 map bookend that. I would prefer to keep the sentence in parentheses; it provides necessary context but doesn't connect to the following sentences. I tried to rewrite it to not be a parenthetical, but it just flows better when set off that way, so I've left it for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grade crossing elimination: Image placement and "paid" done. Added a citation for the quad-tracking. Corrected the convert templates. Removed "handsome". Inflation is done automatically by the {{inflation}} template; the originally value is from the cited source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure and revival: MBTA meaning added. I do mean retaining walls; I can't find as good a source as I want, but the source I added plus the image of the one of the staircases should pretty firmly establish their existence. I believe "restoration" is the proper verb tense for that sentence. A few words and citation for the accessible platform added.

Bus connections: The Mini-Maller does not run to the BAT Centre, hence the current wording.

References: The "via" parameter is used to indicate when the content delivery system (Google Books) is not the same as the original publisher; see Template:Cite book#Publisher. "The Boston Globe" now used in both citations.

Other than a few turns of phrase that we disagree on, and the one imperfect citation, I believe I've addressed all your issues. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, and congrats; I'm now passing! 00:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

History

Early history

Unless I've missed something, this doesn't give a specific opening date, only the year 1846
Remove "significant" from "Unusually among significant cities in Massachusetts"; including a blatant personal opinion on a state's areas like that is inappropriate for what's supposed to be a neutral article. I also can't seem to find anything here even suggesting it wasn't previously a railroad junction
I don't think the "Until 1893" sentence should be in parentheses
It sounds rather speculative to say "likely" within "likely in the 1880s"; try to go with something more definitive, or perhaps "was believed to be replaced in the 1880s" if no concrete range can be given.

I'll do the next subsection in the future when I get a chance..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grade crossing elimination

Try to alternate the image alignment; having multiple in a row on the same side (especially with 3 or more) can get repetitive
"were to be borne 65% by the railroad"..... paid would read better
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the given citation only seems to mention a stone viaduct that is 0.7 miles long without noting "quadruple" or any synonyms
9K feet isn't the same as 1.8 miles (closer to 1.7), and niether does 5.1K feet equate to a mile (that's 5,280 feet)
"handsome" is a subjective term, so I'd remove it from "with its handsome stone stations and bridges"
Were did the money inflation come from?

Another subsection done for now. The subsequent one will come in my next batch of comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure and revival

I know we've also used it above, but MBTA's full name should be included here as well before you use the abbreviation (especially when viewers might not have already read the lead)
"The retaining walls and several stone stairwells to the street remain intact" is unsourced, and did you mean remaining?
"restoration of commuter rail service"..... restoring works better
Something about handicap accessibility should be mentioned (and obviously cited) outside of a photo caption, or it just looks like original research

Bus connections

"Most BAT routes connect there"..... since I can't find any in the map that don't, let's go with "The following BAT routes"

References

I'm pretty sure "via Google Books" isn't supposed to be in ref titles even if it is where you find any books
"The" is part of the title for The Boston Globe

Overall

Prose: Mostly good, but still needs touching up
Referencing: Two bits are missing citations
Breadth of coverage: As far as I can tell, this is fine
Neutrality: All subjective parts have been revised
Stability: Nothing of concern
Media: No copyright concerns
Verdict: Pretty well put together and getting closer to GA standards. I'm putting this on hold for seven days starting now for the remaining concerns to be addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comment

I've little to no experience with the topic, but the following templates include this station and could be used in this article (or not, I've no idea):
{{Old Colony Lines}}
{{CapeFLYER}}
{{Cape Cod and Hyannis Railroad}}
{{South Coast Rail Phase 1}}

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all route diagram templates, which are generally used on the articles of the line or service, on on the station. But thanks for suggesting! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2018 (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.