Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lake Street Transfer station/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2022 [1].

---

Lake Street Transfer station

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The previous FAC of this article failed due to sourcing issues; it appears that Chicago-L.org, while certainly adequate for DYKs and GAs, should not form the basis of an FA, something I can completely understand and appreciate. While I couldn't completely eradicate its use in this article (as I said I wouldn't be able to at the close of the first FAC), I got it down for use as a supplemental "commentary" source that I think it is suited for. More importantly, I turned towards seven book sources that were varied and ranged in time from 1895 to 2007, and was able to add some more and more detailed information on this old early-20th century double-decked rapid transit station. I'll ping @Steelkamp, Dudley Miles, Your Power, Lost on Belmont, Kew Gardens 613, and ZKang123: from the first FAC; this should also be of interest To editors Cards84664 and TheCatalyst31:.

For those not at the first FAC, this was a double-decker transit station on the Chicago "L" from 1913 to 1951. Both lines had been constructed in the 1890s, but didn't merge operations until 1913 or constructed the transfer until then. The upper station's line was replaced by a subway in 1951, which took it closer to downtown. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot to mention, but as in all of my FACs, please feel free to make minor tweaks and adjustments to the article yourself rather than bring them up in the course of your review. Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by TAOT

Hi, I'll be doing a prose review. I have an FAC up myself if you're interested in reviewing, but it's optional.

Lead

• The Lake Street Transfer was a rapid transit transfer station This is nitpicking, but should it be The Lake Street Transfer, or just Lake Street Transfer? Also, should we use the full "Lake Street Transfer station" name in the first sentence?
  • Station nomenclature was rather fluid on the Chicago "L" in the first half of the 20th century (see Congress Terminal for another example); the 1916 Chicago Tribune referred to it as the Lake street transfer point (capitalization and "the" original), and the paper referred to it again as the Lake street transfer station (ditto) in 1935. For its part, the CTA itself referred to it also as the Lake Street transfer station in a 1951 retrospective (all of these sources are cited in the article, btw). I don't feel like having a whole footnote and nomenclature would be helpful, but I've put "Lake Street Transfer station" in bold for now in respect of its contemporaneous usage, even if modern Chicago doesn't use "station" at the end of its station names. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    • That's sufficient to address my concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• It might be a good idea to link transfer station via a pipe to Interchange station. You and I know what it means, but someone not familiar with trains may not. If you do this, I'd also move the rapid transit link elsewhere to avoid SEAOFBLUE issues.
  • I came up with something that hopefully does both things at once. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I like it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Nitpicking again, but It existed from 1913 to 1951, when it was rendered obsolete by the construction of the Dearborn Street subway. isn't strictly correct, because the station existed until its demolition later in the 1950s. It would be correct to say it was open during those dates.
  • Changed to "was in service". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• The site of the station later served as the junction of the Paulina Connector to the Lake Street Elevated shouldn't this be "the junction of the Paulina Connector and the Lake Street Elevated"?
  • Yes it should, done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• I suggest putting all the details on station layout into a distinct paragraph. I'd personally make the first paragraph discuss the station's opening, closing, and location. Second and third paragraphs the same as they are now, and a fourth paragraph discussing the station layout. This would roughly mirror the sections in the body.
  • I've rearranged the lead, hopefully it works better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I think it's better now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Images and infobox

• I recommend making the caption for the map more concise.
  • I tried to an extent; an earlier commenter suggested putting the information in the map itself, but I don't want to limit access to the visually impaired (even if they don't use maps like the sighted do). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Could the alt text be used for the purpose? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
      • I tried it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

More comments will come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wood Station

• This is optional, but consider linking to Railway electrification. That's my only comment on this section.
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Lake station

• No comments here.

Transfer station

• The Logan Square branch would not begin skip-stop until the opening of the Dearborn Street subway and the closing of the transfer in 1951. This kind of jumps ahead of the next section, where the Dearborn Street subway is introduced to the reader with appropriate background and context. I suggest changing this to simply say that the station never had skip-stop service. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I decided against this, since I think the greater specficity is both more directly supported by sources and adds more nuance to the article; and the "jumping around" issue is mitigated by the lead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Dearborn Street subway

• It's not clear to me from the prose when exactly the station closed. I had to check the infobox and then reread to see it was on the exact date the subway opened. I recommend making this clearer.
  • I rearranged sentences to make the link stronger and thus make the closure clearer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• Suggest linking Interlocking.
  • Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• The Paulina Connector – both the original Metropolitan tracks and the newer Washington Junction – remained standing for non-revenue service. Suggest "remained operational" or "remained in operation".
  • Changed to "remained in non-revenue service". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Station details

• The Metropolitan's Lake station, which continued as its portion of the Lake Street Transfer, also had two wooden side platforms but a station house located at street level on the north side of Lake Street. Should there be a comma after "platforms"?
  • Yes; as said in the introduction, please take the liberty of making minor corrections and lint cleanups yourself on my FACs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Operations and connections

• Smoking was banned by the city across the "L" and in streetcars in response to a 1918 influenza outbreak Is this referring to the Spanish flu pandemic? I suspect it is. If so, that can be linked.
  • I also strongly suspect so, but Moffat never explicitly says as much. I can maybe look at contemporary newspapers to see. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    • If Moffat doesn't explicitly make the connection, we can't either. If you can find newspapers that make the connection, then that would be great, but it's not a big concern for me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Starting in 1922, fares were usually marketed in packs of three ride for 25 cents, Shouldn't this be "three rides"?
  • Yes; again, feel free to correct lint/typos yourself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I'm so used to the idea of "reviewers shouldn't make any edits to the article" that I forgot you said to make minor changes myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• That's all I have for now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support on prose. I'm not doing a source review, but looking at the source that was questioned, I do see a bibliography indicating sources used by the website. I don't think it's an ideal source, because we don't have citations in the specific article indicating where the author obtained the information from. That said, it's not something I would personally oppose over, as most of the article stands on its own without citing this source exclusively. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Harry

• Lake Street Transfer was double-decked, with the Metropolitan's tracks and station being located immediately above the Lake Street's tracks and station clunky use of "with" to connect two facts. You could just lose the "with" and the "being" to improve flow and make the sentence grammatical.

Other than that, support on prose. I don't know enough about the subject matter to offer an opinion on sourcing and comprehensiveness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• I thought it was traditional to do ablative absolute-style phrases with "...with this being so" in English, but fair point, done. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by a455bcd9

What's the reliable source of the map? A455bcd9 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have added sources. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Does the first source cover both "The Lake Street Elevated" and "The Metropolitan Elevated's trackage prior to 1951"? And the second one both "The Loop" and "The Dearborn Street subway and Congress Line"? It would be good to add sources to the file description on Commons as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  I've moved the first source for better coverage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• @A455bcd9: Have anything else to say on this article, since it's approaching the bottom of the queue? No rush if not. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @John M Wolfson: I have nothing else to say. I'm not knowledgeable enough to support or oppose. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• For the Transfer station map, even as a person with normal vision I'm finding it hard to distinguish the Logan Square and Loop markers. Can this be improved wrt MOS:COLOUR?
  • I have reverted the edit to the original SVG, which I think is also better to show the new routing that replaced the old one.
    • I have gone back to the interactive map, this time with a depiction of the post-1950s routing in question. Unfortunately, I still don't know how to change the line colors from their Commons-data default, so the current suboptimal color scheme has stuck. I hope this isn't too big a deal, but if it is I'm sure someone with more experience with Commons/Wikidata/OpenStreetMaps can assist in changing the line colors. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps someone at WP:MAPREQ could help? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent a request there, hopefully it won't take too long. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• File:Lake_Street_Transfer_station_postcard.png: where is the date information coming from? The description is vaguer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Garfield does not provide any dates for the postcard, nor does it appear in Moffat, so a precise date is unknown. The dress of the passengers suggests that it is from the 1910s, as does the lack of grid coordinates on the platform signage, but I have removed the date. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• [23] links to newspapers.com, but the article has not been clipped -- can we get a clipping so readers can bypass the paywall on the Tribune? Similarly for [24] and [46]. I see you do have clippings for some of the Tribune citations.
  • Done for 23 and 24. 46 is multiple-page, so I don't know how to clip appropriately. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    See here, FN 34, for one way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    That seems a bit cumbersome in my opinion (not to mention might be COinS-dubious), but so be it. I've only done the second page since that's where the information is and in the spirit of fair use. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    It is indeed cumbersome. I don't know a better way, unfortunately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• What is the sorting order for the works cited section?
  • Harvid order; the 1895 Review was originally simply titled "Review" and sorted appropriately, and has been fixed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry, not sure what you mean. I take it the "Review" is treated as "Anonymous" and is therefore first? And from Borzo on it's author, or publisher as author. But why is Department of Subways before Borzo and after the Review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    Whatever I put in the {{Harvid}} – "1895 Review", "1939 Plan", "Lind 1974", etc. – is what I used as the sortkey. For a whole lot of CTA/CTA-adjacent refs, I believe it would be more useful to use descriptors such as "1939 Plan" to differentiate wherever necessary.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    I think a reader needs to be able to find something in the list by searching alphabetically; a minor point with so few refs but still a reasonable thing to do (and future editors will want to add their references at a sensible place in the list). If you're saying that the list is logically ordered as far as you're concerned, and the harvid is how you enforce that, then what I'm asking is what the basis is for that logical order. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    If that is the only qualm, I have changed the plan to "CTA 1939" and reordered it accordingly. This is anachronistic, as the article itself states since the CTA wasn't created until the 1940s, but "Department of Subways and Traction" is too long (even in abbreviated form), "CRT" is inaccurate, and "City of Chicago" is too non-descriptive, so this can perhaps be a "lie to children" and allows for categorical grouping. I think it's either that, or back to "1939 Plan". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• No publisher for Chicago Transit Board (1954).
  • Also no publisher for CTA (1951), which I didn't feel was necessary since they are also the authors there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• You're inconsistent about the use of the publisher location -- Public Information Department (1967), Lind (1974), and Moffat (1995) have locations; the others do not.
  • Locations have been added where appropriate and easily accessible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• [13] is formatted as a web citation which is fine, but you don't give a website/work parameter -- your other web citations use work=.
  • Since it wasn't originally in web format, I feel that would be inappropriate, but I have added a "via=" parameter as a compromise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    I think we need to treat it as either fish or fowl. If it's a web citation, we should give the website; if it's not a web citation, shouldn't we be citing it as a publication (whatever the original publication is) with a title? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    It was a map/pamphlet originally, so I have decided to replace it with a generic {{Citation}}. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry, but using {{citation}} with the {{cite}} family gives us inconsistent formatting (commas vs. full stops) -- FAC doesn't care which you use (or none) but the formatting should be consistent. Perhaps {{cite map}} would work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

    Didn't give me errors, so sure. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources are reliable and links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: I apologize if this is an overstep, but this is getting near the bottom of the FAC queue, has multiple supports, and has passed the source review, so I believe there is some consensus for promotion. The main stopping point, in my view, is the image review. @Nikkimaria: I am aware of the suboptimal map coloring, and have requested attention to it, but just as I feared/expected it does not appear to be coming in the short-term future (I can ask the help desk if you feel that is appropriate and more expeditious). Are there any other concerns that would derail (pun intended) this FAC's image review? Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It has two general/prose supports. It needs at least one more to even be considered for closure. (Leaving aside the image review.) I has already been added to Urgents. You may wish to consider putting out some neutrally phrased requests for further reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited a little; please revert if I screwed anything up.

• "The Lake Street Transfer station was a rapid transit station on the Chicago "L", serving as a transfer station between its Lake Street Elevated and the Logan Square branch of its Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad." I can see that "its Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad" means 'the Chicago "L"'s Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad', but for "its Lake Street Elevated" shouldn't we have a noun like "branch" or "railroad" after "Elevated"? Or is this normal usage in Chicago?
  • The article Lake Street Elevated Railroad leads to the company, whereas Lake Street Elevated leads to the line itself. I decided to just write "Railroad" outside of the link for consistency.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

    That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• "The merger of the stations was a legal obligation to the Lake Street Elevated's owner when the four companies that had formed the Chicago "L" merged operations in the early 1910s, and involved its closing of Wood station and building a station at the site of its transfer with the Metropolitan." It looks to me as if you say "the Lake Street Elevated's owner" to avoid having to mention the name change to the C&OP in the lead, which is reasonable. However, it makes this confusing to read. Having read the relevant details in the body of the article, how about "The four companies that had formed the Chicago "L" merged operations in the early 1910s, and a condition of the merger was that a station was required to be built at the site of the Lake Street Elevated's transfer with the Metropolitan, replacing Wood station."?
  • Done; hopefully I didn't write it too clunkily. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

    Can we get away with dropping "the Lake Street Elevated's owner", which raises the question of who that is without answering it, and just use the passive -- "a station was required to be built" or something similar? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

    How about this? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• "newfangled" is a bit too judgemental for encyclopedic tone.
  • I can see where it has implication of naivete and "greenness", but I don't know of any other adjective that could be used without needlessly altering the structure of the sentence. "Newfound", "newly-minted"? I don't know; not done for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

    Maybe just "newly formed CTA"? Or "newly created"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

    "Newly formed" it is. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• "similar to how the State Street subway supplements the earlier elevated North Side main line": suggest "in the same way that the State Street subway provides access to the earlier...".
  • How about "connects with"? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

    That's fine, but I was also hoping to replace "similar to how" -- I know this is an AmEng article but to my ex-pat British ears "similar to how" is not formal prose, and I was hoping for wording that is acceptable on both sides of the pond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

    "Similar to" isn't formal enough for British ears? I hope the limeys aren't too picky for "much like" :P. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

    That works. I made it "much as" rather than "much like", but change it back if you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• "the Logan Square branch south of Damen would be closed after the subway opened": suggest "...after the Dearborn Street subway opened".
  • Did "Dearborn subway"; it's enough to differentiate it from the State Street subway, and it is common Chicago parlance to drop "Street"/"Avenue"/etc., especially in a transit context. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• I think some of the material in the last two paragraphs of the "Dearborn Street subway, closure, and demolition" section relating to the Paulina connector is a bit far afield from the topic of this article, and given that we have an article about the Paulina connector, perhaps we can shorten these paragraphs a bit?
  • I tried some trimming, but I think emphasizing its connection with the site of the Lake Street Transfer station would be a better bet. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally looks very clean. The history section is complicated and I had to read it two or three times to feel confident I had the gist, but there's not much that can be done about that. I thought of asking for more maps but I think it's just a general knowledge of the Chicago area that's needed to make this easy to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• I mean, I can try to make a GIF/animation similar to File:Laketransfercontext.svg showing the evolution of the trackage over time, but I wouldn't be able to guarantee that such an animation would be done in the timeframe of this FAC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  No need -- I always like more maps but here I think it would just be personal preference, not a requirement for understanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

I don't know much about trains so this review is from a layman's perspective.

• The second paragraph frequently uses passive voice - three consecutive sentences with had been. Can you vary a little?
  • That paragraph had been a pain to write anyway, and I think passive voice works well for stations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• "Reincorpoated as the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company on August 24, 1892, to avoid legal issues,[5] its line, the Lake Street Elevated, commenced revenue operations at 5 a.m. on November 6, 1893, between California station and the Market Street Terminal." Too many commas here.
  • Most of those are pro forma date/geocommas, but if you'd like I could split the sentence into two. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Stations in between Pulaski and the Loop, exclusive, became either "A" or "B" - I don't quite understand the meaning of exclusive here. Does it mean that the becoming of A or B was exclusive to these stations?
  • It means that Pulaski and the Loop were themselves excluded from the program (so, in a sense, yes). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• "Originally included in the petition was a proposal" -> "The petition originally included a proposal" (simplified)
  • Done.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• "he Wood station had two station houses, one on each platform, designed in a "gingerbread" Queen Anne style, similar to the other stations on the route and the surviving station houses at Ashland." Rather repetitive with four instances of station in one sentence.
  • Consider "station house" to be something of a headless phrase independent of "station" .– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• "Like the rest of the station, the tracks were double-decked in relation with one another, with the Metropolitan's tracks being above the Lake Street's tracks." tracks.. tracks.. tracks
  • Fixed.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My comments are mostly minor and focused on the language. FrB.TG (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. Good work. If you can spare some time, I would appreciate comments on my FAC but it's obviously in no way obligatory. FrB.TG (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.