Jump to content

Talk:Chelsea station (MBTA)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chelsea station (MBTA)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be looking at this one tomorrow. eviolite (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Images:

  • All good - haven't seen annotated images being used for crops before, but it's probably fine
  • Although, the caption for the map should read "East Everett station" instead of "The station" as it's ambiguous
    •  Done

Sourcing:

  • Not sure what the Flickr image is meant to be citing
    • The one-story wooden station... Technically the Sanborn map also indicates that, but the Flickr image is an easier-to-understand source. (It's from a reputable historical group, so there shouldn't be RS issues.)
      •  Comment: Alright, if it's reliable then that's fine.
  • Otherwise, everything is good

Lead:

  • "The Boston and Maine Railroad and predecessor Eastern Railroad served an East Everett station nearby from 1880 until around 1950." This feels a bit awkward, maybe "From 1880 to around 1950, the Eastern Railroad and the Boston and Maine Railroad served East Everett station, near modern-day Chelsea station."? I'd just prefer to make it explicit the connection between the old railroads and this station
    •  Done Reworded.

Station layout:

  • "at Everett Avenue" - maybe "on"?
    •  Done Reworded.
  • What does "high-level" mean in this context?
    •  Done Wikilinked.
  • Would it be helpful to also add in the fare zone?
    • I don't personally think so; while it's standard in the infobox, it doesn't seem particularly relevant in the prose.

History:

  • Link Revere, Massachusetts
    •  Done
  • Consider linking Main line (railway)
    •  Done
  • Why is East Everett bolded?
  • Clarify where Boston and 2nd is in relation to the location of the current station (since there is no context for why a different station in another place is being discussed)
    •  Done
  • "began studying an extension of" - consider changing to "began studying a proposed extension of"?
    •  Done
  • Is there any more information on the "existing Chelsea station"? I assume this is not the same as the East Everett station so it should probably be talked about (or clarified if it was in a completely different location)
    • It's discussed and wikilinked in the previous paragraph.
  • " with the commuter rail platforms at Bellingham Square closed at that time" - is there any reason for this?
    • As discussed in the paragraph beginning On October 30, 2013, the platforms at this Chelsea station were a direct replacement for those at Bellingham Square (which, confusingly, was formerly called Chelsea.) I'm open to any copyediting suggestions.
      •  Comment: Maybe it would help if it read "original commuter rail platforms at the site of Bellingham Square station"? Not really sure.

That's all, again a nice article. @Pi.1415926535: Placing on hold. eviolite (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite: Thanks for the review! I've left my comments above - I implemented most of your suggestions, and I'm open to potential copyediting for the last few paragraphs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks, responded inline with  Comment:s. eviolite (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eviolite: Replies are above. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, happy to pass. Great work again, Pi.1415926535. eviolite (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]