Talk:Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch)

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:Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 02:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hello again! :) Hoping to get to this within a few hours. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 02:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
• I have placed this article on hold for now and left some comments below. I will do the spotchecks tomorrow. Sorry for any inconvenience. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 05:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks for the changes and fast response—I can now confidently pass this article for GA status. Congrats! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go.

Files

All images are relevant, high quality and copyright-free:

File:Chicago-Metropolitan-Station.png: valid public domain rationale;

File:1715-West-Chicago.jpg: CC0 1.0, uploaded to Commons by nominator (thanks!);

File:California CTA Blue Line Station.jpg: CC-BY-SA 2.0.

Prose

• "The Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Company" – should company be capitalised?
  • As a proper noun, yes.
    • Noted.
• Wikilink right of way.
  • Done.
• "serve various parts of Chicago's west side" – wikilink Chicago.
  • Not done, per MOS:OVERLINK.
    • Fair enough.
• "would come back to haunt the company" – reads rather unencyclopaedic; recommend rephrasing.
  • Rephrased.
• "creating the "West-Northwest Route" that" – are the quotations necessary?
  • As a route that no longer exists and does not/should not have an article, I think so.
• Forgive me as I am unfamiliar with the relevant policies—is the death of Sidor Bobel notable enough to be mentioned? Additionally, dedicating a section to this death might give it unbalanced notability IMO.
  • I originally added it for DYK purposes since I'd like a Four Award for this, but the commercial building should suffice for it. I still think it differentiates this station from its neighbors, but I'm open to removing it. If it's included, it doesn't belong in any other section IMO.
    • Well, are pedestrian train station-related deaths infrequent? The rarer they are the more notable including this would be in my view.
• The sentence starting "The station house, made of red pressed brick" is quite long; could it be split into two? Relatedly:
  • Done
• Is "specifically marked "Entrance" and "Exit"" noteworthy?
  • IIRC, Garfield mentions it. While he's not the definitive authority here (as we've discussed before), I still think it's worthy of comment.
• "in response to a 1918 influenza outbreak" – does it happen to be the 1918 flu pandemic?
  • I highly suspect so, but Moffat doesn't expressly state as such.
    • Fair enough.
• "Chicago Avenue had two streetcar lines;" – recommend replacing the semicolon with an en dash to avoid using it twice in this sentence.
  • Rephrased it another way.
• I doubt there needs to be two paragraphs in Ridership; recommend merging into one.
  • Done. I'm on mobile, but I also did the recommendations for the refs and miscellany. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I send my condolences.

Refs

All sources used are either RS or used appropriately. Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 5, 9, 16, 25, 31, 37 or 49. Note that I could not find access to Moffat, but will assume good faith.

• Recommend using Template:Cite map for ref 5. Also, mention the publisher.
• In Works cited, change Archive.org to Internet Archive.

Other

Short desc, WP:ALT text, coords, infobox, nav and cats good.

• Recommend adding Template:Use X English.
• The navbox goes one space above categories.

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 Bruxton (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Building by Chicago station

• ... that a commercial building (pictured) reveals the location of tracks by Chicago station? Source: Banich
  • ALT1: ... that a man was decapitated on the tracks near Chicago station? Source: Chicago Tribune 1949
  • Reviewed: A drive into deep left field by Castellanos
  • Comment: ALT1 seems a bit tacky for my liking, but either is fine by me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 01:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch), so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - concern
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @John M Wolfson: Good article. but what makes Forgotten chicago a reliable source? Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: Forgotten Chicago has quite a few staff on its team that are also involved with such organizations as Preservation Chicago, dealing with Chicago's built environment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Onegreatjoke: status report? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Under the assumption that forgotten chicago can be considered reliable. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)