Jump to content

Talk:Church Street station (MBTA)

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 20:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    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:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
  • Why is the name in infobox written in caps?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That style is applied to all MBTA station articles to match the style of actual station signage. There's been some back-and-forth about that; I don't have a particular opinion, but it's probably outside the scope of a single GA.
      • Maybe you can write is like, "Church Street station (stylised as CHURCH STREET) is an under-construction"  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that's necessary; it's only stylized that way on station signs and not in sources. Again, this is a discussion that would affect over 300 MBTA station articles, so it's not really in scope here.
  • Replace the bolded words with " "  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Partly done I left Acushnet station bold per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink the first New Bedford, Boston etc. words in the body.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
  • Change citation [8] to sentence case (MOS:ALLCAPS)  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
  • Disabled access mentioned in infobox, but not in body. Also it doesnt have citation.
    •  Done Added to the station layout section, as it's covered in the existing citation.
  • "The former Acushnet station, located..." - this introduction of Acushnet station feels a bit abrupt. While reading for the first time, I was unable to find its connection with Church Street station.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 
    •  Done Added a couple words to clarify.

@ArnabSaha: Thanks for the review! I've replied to your comments above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I feel other than these minor things, the article is fine.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnabSaha: Replied above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passed 13:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Just a suggestion: Maybe add that the station is in Massachusetts. This would add a small bit of context, and the hook is on the shorter end as it is. Steelkamp (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally prefer to keep hooks short - my take is that a little mystery can pique interest - but I appreciate your perspective. Thanks for the review! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To T:DYK/P2

Name of station

[edit]

The article is never clear on when it was first named Church Street Station or when it was changed out to what. Wis2fan (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originally to be on the west side of the tracks, the planned station was moved to the east side and renamed North New Bedford in 2019. A construction contract was issued in 2020; that year, the station was again renamed as Church Street. ... In 2019, the planned site was moved across the tracks due to drainage and land acquisition issues, with the name changed to "North New Bedford" for clarity. ... In 2020, the planned name was changed to "Church Street". Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_Street_station_(MBTA)&oldid=1206693280"