Talk:Pocinho railway station

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good job!

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Rough Translation tag

I have had a go at resolving the rough translation tag in advance of the GAR, by improving the grammar. I have had to add two clarify tags, where I cannot understand what is meant, and one verify tag, where a fact quoted as taking place in 1968 is supported by a ref that shows documents from 1934. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have since managed to resolve one of the clarify tags, by translating the sources given, rather than looking at the Portuguese wiki article. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pocinho railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 05:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking a look at the article and helping, the problems should all be fixed now!

V.B.Speranza (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@V.B.Speranza: Welcome to GAN! I've done a partial review, but I'm holding early so that two priority items are resolved before I begin spot-checking sources and formally "hold" the review pending final improvements. The article is in okay shape, with lots of good images, but the English is uneven. WP:CINS will be of particular value to you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.

Copy changes

• Consider using {{convert}} templates to provide metric and imperial measurements for units.
• Trains arrive at irregular intervals from 10:45 until 20:53, and depart at irregular intervals between 7:08 and 19:26.; The section of the Douro line between Tua and Pocinho was opened for operation on 10 January 1887, and was the provisional terminus of the line until the next section to Côa was completed on 5 May of the same year. a project that would connect all the narrow-gauge lines in the Trás-os-Montes region, but would cause major traffic disruption while the work was taking place etc. This comma isn't needed (WP:CINS) — same subject
• In 1988, services were withdrawn on the Sabor line, and on the section between Pocinho and Barca d'Alva of the Douro line. No need for this comma either.
• In 2008, the Northern Region Coordination Commission was looking for private operators to rehabilitate the stretch between Pocinho and Barca d'Alva, and use it for tourist trains you guessed it
• Douro Mission Structure Whatever this is did not translate well.

• I was not convinced that the solution adopted of translating it back into Portuguese (Estrutura de Missão do Douro) was helpful. However, Unesco translate it as Douro Mission, and give an explanation of what the structure is for, so I have replaced the Portuguese with Douro Mission, and added a clause about its function. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• At the time, the initiative to reopen the line already had the support of the Spanish government, and Another unneeded comma.
• On 27 January 2012, four young Spaniards were arrested by soldiers... Is this relevant for inclusion?
• The mayor also asked whether the company was planning to replace the rolling stock, and whether that which was used during the electrification works would return to service on the line between Marco de Canaveses and Pocinho, to which the company replied that various changes were being studied, but would not be put into practice at that time. Dense sentence that suffers from being a translation from Portuguese

• I have reworked this, to improve the grammar. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Is capitalization of last names in references standard in Portuguese? It isn't in English, and you may be better served eliminating it.

• I have resolved all the remaining upper case author names. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing and spot checks

Priority items

If these cannot be solved first, I won't continue to a spot check:

• Meaning of "rated as a station" in Description

• Again, I am not convinced that "rated as a station (E)" provides any more clarity than "rated as a station." This would only be acceptable if there was some indication of what (E) means. I have searched online, but have not yet found anything useful. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have since found what the ratings mean, and have reworked the text to include a definition of what an E rated station is. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I read your description and the classification tiers and had to fix it because class E is the opposite of big. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• I originally wrote "indicating that it was a small station with little passenger traffic", but it was subsequently edited by others. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• ref [13], from 1934, being used to verify a claim about 1968

Full check

The above has been resolved satisfactorily. Full random spot check:

• 5 — See above. This required reworking. Y
• 8 — Unfortunately, an offline source I cannot check.
• 26 — Fails verification. Appears to be the wrong source entirely. This is an edition from 1940. This must be fixed if this page is to be promoted.
• 29 — Offline source.
• 44 — News article on REFER saying conditions would be suitable to restart the line at the end of March. Y
• 48 — Why is this necessary? He's already mentioned by name in 49. Consider rewording to make this sentence less comma-dependent.

@V.B.Speranza and Bob1960evens: The ref 26 issue needs solving. Please take a look at other old refs to make sure there are no 1953 claims sourced to 1940 articles or similar. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed ref 26 and tried to redo 48/49 V.B.Speranza (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed refs 8, 26, 29 and redone 48/49.

I think everything is done now, but I’ll appreciate feedback.

V.B.Speranza (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@V.B.Speranza Can you help me find the section pertaining to this station in the Diario do Governo? I have looked up and down and am not seeing it, even with the transport section. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

After 1 hour of research I found the mention of the expropriation was on a Train magazine (Gazeta dos Caminhos de Ferro) and not the actual diário do governo of 5 March 1953 (the full official document is unavailable and the part previously cited didn’t show the expropriation part)

it is now fixed, it shows on page 95 (17th digital sheet)

V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems a shame that Portugal's availability of their gazette is apparently worse than Mexico's, which I had to use in some of my broadcasting page improvements there. But there it is. This explains a discrepancy: the citation was to Série II, but the old PDF was Série III.

I think this is ready (basically it was held but I never put it formally on hold) now that we have fixed the last priority reference issue. Wow, this page required a bit of dragging to GA status. Kudos to Bob1960evens for jumping in on this one too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Images

The images are all acceptable, CC-licensed or public domain. Encouragement (not necessary for GA status): Adding alt text makes the images accessible for blind and visually impaired readers.

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.

Did you know nomination

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 Lightburst talk 17:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Pocinho station in 2009.

• ... that the Pocinho railway station (pictured) is the first Portuguese transport related Good Article in Wikipedia? Source: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Portal:Portugal

New hook:

• ... that the Comboio Presidencial, a train that used to carry the Head of State of Portugal through the Douro Line since 1890, had the Pocinho railway station (pictured) as its last stop? Source:https://expresso.pt/boa-cama-boa-mesa/2023-11-16-Com-menu-assinado-por-Chakall-Comboio-Presidencial-regressa-ao-Douro-em-marco-de-2024-da2bd6ce
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by V.B.Speranza (talk). Self-nominated at 16:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pocinho railway station; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• As interesting a fact as it is, it is not stated within the article, nor is it sourced to a reliable source (see WP:DYKHOOK). Though, this article is eligible for DYK, so if you devise an alternate hook I can give a full review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article myself to see if anything can be proposed but nothing came to mind initially. Maybe either Epicgenius, SounderBruce, or Trainsandotherthings may have some ideas? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Meta" statements like the proposed hook aren't a thing done in DYK. I see nothing in the article that would make a good DYK hook, quite frankly, because so much of it isn't even about the station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: New proposal done! V.B.Speranza (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• @V.B.Speranza: Will you be able to propose a new hook? If not then unfortunately the nomination may have to be failed for lack of a suitable hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: New proposal done! V.B.Speranza (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Requesting a new review for ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

AGF for foreign language source- approve ALT1 MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 06:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Actually a full review hasn't been done yet, so please check the other DYK criteria as well, not just the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: The article recently passed GA criteria, what’s left to be reviewed? It seems to pass WP:DYKCRIT. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't use the review template. Here it is:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - Not sure if it falls under neutrality, but I have a concern regarding the history section. There's tons of about the Douro line that really belongs on that article, not this one. A lot of this should be cut, including paras 2, most of 5, 6, and most of 7.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: V.B.Speranza See neutrality concerns above MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 08:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: I honestly think that most of the information “about the Douro line” is directly related to the station, the parts that aren’t provide background information that wouldn’t benefit anyone if removed. Concerning the neutrality I don’t see any problem, if you could give me some examples of where the neutrality is challenged I would love to fix them. V.B.Speranza (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Does the above satisfy your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

V.B.Speranza It's not necessarily a neutrality issue, I just didn't know where else to put it. I see that it may be relevant to this station in particular, but a lot of the info seems rather unimportant in its broader history- take On 27 January 2012, four young Spaniards were arrested by soldiers from the National Republican Guard at Pocinho station when they were graffitiing a parked train.[52] They were brought before the Foz Côa court, which ordered bail of 200 euros and imposed a restraining order on them.[52] Could just be my perception, but "kids graffiti train and get arrested" isn't that notable, which is only proven further by the fact that it's sourced to one news article. Or look at On 15 August of that year, the Minister of Public Works paid a visit to Pocinho. Is the minister coming to the station notable? I do not see how it's important to the rest of that paragraph. Those are the only two big issues I can spot. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 09:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Problem solved, I deleted the part about the graffiti kids, and change the other one so that it correlates better with the following sentence (resulted of poor translation, sorry bt. V.B.Speranza (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

All good now, AGF for foreign language sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)