Talk:South Attleboro station

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

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

• The first para of 'Bus connections' is unsourced
• In infobox parking is 568, in body its 579.
  • Both done. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Parking fee not required. Too much detail.

❯❯❯   S A H A 10:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• • That's pretty commons for station articles. While I don't love it, parking fees are unfortunately one of the most common things that readers come here looking for. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Pi.1415926535 true, but as we are going for GA, it needs to be omitted. ❯❯❯   S A H A 07:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Given that it hasn't been an issue in half a dozen previous GAs of other MBTA Commuter Rail arguments, I don't see why it's an impediment to GA, nor why it is disallowed. Do you have any other comments , or is this the only remaining sticking point? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
        • I will go for a 2nd opinion then. ❯❯❯   S A H A 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

          • @Pi.1415926535: ArnabSaha asked me to provide a second opinion (and I know I'm a little late). Normally I would suggest (but not require) excluding parking fees, since it's a gray area in WP:NOTGUIDE. However, because it's a relatively minor point and such fees are mentioned in similar good articles as well, I'd leave it alone for the sake of consistency. epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

          • Pi.1415926535 Good to go. As per the 2nd opinion provided by epicgenius. ❯❯❯   S A H A 14:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Putting on hold due to some issues. Couldn't find the parking space numbers and fees details in the citation. ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Added a citation with both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)