Talk:Highland branch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Will look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 02:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Dab links, dup links, external links and copyvio all seem to show no problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Refs 3, 9 and 17 all back up what they are cited to in the text.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Any chance for a geography of the line? Some of the other articles on rail lines contain this.
   • Precursors: Do you know what the projects cost?
   • "The introduction of frequent service to Boston led a population boom in Newton.[8]" -- Any number on population? Of course the caveat this wouldn't be singularly responsible. Just data to back up the term "population boom."
   • Any sense for peak ridership before sale to MTA?
   • A short graph of the subsequent history of the track as the D Branch would be helpful at the end. Of course, there's an article that will go into further detail of course, but a bare-bones look at subsequent history with the link there creates a self-contained article. I should note I've done this at times, for example 45th Infantry Division (United States), where the narrative continues at 45th Infantry Brigade (United States).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Images are cited to PD and CC licenses.

7. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll see what I can turn up. Mackensen (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've added a section discussing the route itself.
• I found costs for the Charles River Branch Railroad as a whole, which I added with a caveat. The 1848 annual report for the Boston and Worcester Railroad didn't give the construction cost of the Brookline Branch. The 1849 report gives a figure of 42,157.03 for the branch "to November 30, 1848." That's close enough.
• The secondary source which claimed the population boom didn't give figures.
• Regarding ridership, I haven't seen anything discussing peaks, just the state of affairs leading to the MTA takeover. Measuring the number of trains operated might be more fruitful, but also difficult. As a suburban service, timetables wouldn't always be published in the Official Guide or in company timetables, and suburban timetables from this era are difficult to come by.
• I'll see what I can do about the D Branch. Normally I'd crib from the related article, but most of the content there is uncited. Paging Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs), who's worked in this space.
• -- Mackensen (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have an entire notebook filled with notes about the D Branch and its stations - I'm planning on getting them all to GA eventually - but that's probably a few months out. For now, I'll add some pertinent information to this article tonight. (In particular, some station details - Beaconsfield was a circa-1907 infill, while the three intermediate stations on the 1886 extension didn't all open together.) As for the post-conversion history, I'm not sure how much is really necessary beyond what Mackensen has already written, but I'll add a few bits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've added what seems most pertinent for now. Ed, I'm sorry for making you reread the now-expanded article! Mackensen, two side notes. One, see my talk page section about the first conversion claim. Two, when discussing mileages, be aware that mileages from "Boston" are not always consistent - the 1899 creation of South Station added about 0.2 miles. (I first encountered this when searching for the remaining mileposts along the line.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Magnificent, thank you! Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good! Spotting one more item if you could fix it - the Dana ref is resolving a Harv error if that could be fixed. Beyond that, I think the article's got sufficient content for GA, so passing now. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 16:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)