Talk:Lansdowne station (MBTA)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 18:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi! I'd be glad to review this article. I will have my initial checks up soon, but on a first glance, I like what I'm seeing. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Checks

In the GA toolbox, Dablinks shows no problems, but Checklinks came up with several dead links.
There are lots of images, but no copyright or caption problems that I can detect.
For the infobox where the weekday ridership is, is there perhaps newer data than 8 years ago? Perhaps this can show the progression from the 585 passengers in 2007 getting closer to the goal of 937.

Let's start here, Pi.1415926535. As I said, the article looks pretty good and my feedback shouldn't take too long, as most of my suggestions are relatively minor ones. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 12:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All citations and external links are either live or viably archived, and I checked that all live links have a viable archive version available if needed. All images, incidentally, are my own work. I found a reliable source of 2012 ridership data and clarified boardings vs alightings vs totals. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

In the first sentence, replace "section" with neighborhood, it is more precise and less confusing.
The last sentence of the first paragraph just doesn't fit with where it currently is. If anything, it probably belongs as the last sentence in the second paragraph.
My biggest concern is that the information regarding the future Fenway Center development and the overpasses is actually new information that belongs under the Future Plans section. The lead should only summarize what's in the body of the article and should not introduce information not otherwise in the article.

Let me leave it at that for tonight because it's late, so I will stop here for now. I'll leave more feedback tomorrow. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First two are done. The Fenway Center information belongs more with the new station than it does with the cancelled DMU and BRT plans, so I've changed the section title accordingly. I believe all information in the lede is cited in the main body text (save for a small amount that belongs only in the infobox). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535:

History

I need more time to look over this section. The latter half of this section appears to be fine. My concerns will primarily focus around the first two sections, but I need another read-through and it certainly won't happen at 11:20 at night, so I'll leave feedback for this section tomorrow.

As far as content goes, this section is fine. I will touch up on some of the mechanics, but otherwise, this is a pass. Congrats! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Station design

This section is unsourced. Unless there's some trick to this section, I'm sure the MBTA website or some other source of that sort will suffice for this section. Correct me if I'm wrong though (or of course, if it isn't supposed to be sourced).

Done. It was a bit trickier to prove exactly *why* the platforms are arranged as such (given that there are no known publicly accessible copies of the 2007 study remaining) but the presence of problematic gaps on convex curves is quite provable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connections

This section is all good.

Once I leave the history feedback, all you have to do is make the appropriate changes and then I think it'll be a pass. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]