Talk:Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation Center

Needs a history section

This article needs a history section, or at least a pre-history section. I suggest adding an image of the former Pittsfield Statin for anybody who writes one. ----DanTD (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The old Pittsfield Station.

A few years later, but it's complete. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

---

I'd like to merge Union Station (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) and Pittsfield Depot into the History section here. Both are stub articles that are extremely limited on their own, because the history of railroading in Pittsfield is extremely complex. There have been no less than eight stations in total in Pittsfield, and their history is best understood in the context of each other. It would detract from the smooth flow to parcel some out to separate articles for no real benefit. Neither station was particularly architecturally significant (Meeks snubs them and instead mentions the 1840 station) nor widely historically important (neither still stands, and the second Union Station was not placed on the National Register) enough to merit separate articles. Undue weight should not be an issue; the article as it currently stands has a fairly balanced history and I don't see the text being substantially changed by the merge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.--agr (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree If they still existed or were of historic importance it might have been better to retain them. The only reservation I have is that a series of small linked bites of information can often function better than an extremely long article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Mild oppose, open to being convinced otherwise. We're getting pretty far afield from the transportation center. I think a better target would be History of rail transport in Pittsfield, Massachusetts (unwritten, but all the material is here). Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Support. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't believe we're actually getting that far afield, geographically or topically. All the stations discussed here (save for the original Housatonic station, which has no description or image in any source I've gotten my paws on) are a direct series of replacements for the original 1840 depot. All except the 1965-1981 station are located within the same 2000-foot stretch of rail in downtown Pittsfield. Service patterns, owners, and other incidentals changed at different times than the stations did, which means there'd be a lot of repetition between articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sold! Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support, but only since these structures don't exist anymore. Right now, creating the History of rail transport in Pittsfield, Massachusetts article would be very awkward unless some other history is written as well. epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. although I do find Mackensens's suggestion of a History of rail transport in Pittsfield, Massachusetts article to be an interesting one. Would horsecar, and streetcar history be added to this article if it's written? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Up to the author, and it wouldn't be me! I think it would inevitably be in-scope if such were written, assuming sources exist. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense to me for the reasons already noted.FFM784 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support No concerns here, as it makes no sense to split them up like that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support This makes perfect sense, it probably shouldn't be separate articles anyway. RES2773 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)RES2773
• Support This article is a fine example of how railroad station articles should be written. The amount of material in the proposed merge subjects is not so overwhelming as to disrupt the quality of content and the proposal itself is sensible. The resulting redirects should probably point to the most appropriate subsection for each station building. Slambo (Speak) 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Slambo that this is an excellent example of a good rail article. Pi.1415926535 has done a great job with finding images and filling in the history using several sources. My only request would be for someone to add the New York New Haven and Hartford services to the former services list at the top of the page. Well done.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I would say this has been left up here for enough time, would anyone like to perform the merger? If asked, I would be willing to do so! RES2773 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply - I'm surprised the merger hasn't taken place already. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Since this seems to be unanimous, I'll do so now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 18:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-written prose. I see no issues with it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes. Sections are appropriate. Lead adequately summarizes the article. The list is appropriate and properly formatted. I didn't notice any inappropriate words.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The citations are formatted correctly. There are a couple of statements without an inline citation: In the "Amtrak" section: "The Amtrak platform, which is located below the main level of the building, is accessible using a stairway or an elevator. There is a single low-level platform facing one of the line's two tracks. A wheelchair lift is available for use if needed, making the station fully handicapped accessible." In the "Early stations" section: "With the completion of the Housatonic, passengers could travel in four directions from Pittsfield: west to Albany, north to North Adams, east to Springfield and Boston, and south to Bridgeport and New York City."
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues here
	2c. it contains no original research.	No apparent OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses all main topics. One question: Does the center have parking or drop off for passenger vehicles?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues here. The article is divided appropriately and does not go into unnecessary detail on any topic. On first reading the article, I thought the history section went into unnecessary detail about the history of the former stations, but I see from the talk page that those articles were merged into this one.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There are no neutrality issues with this article
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No fair use images in this article. All images have appropriate copyright tags.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues with this criteria
	7. Overall assessment.	All this article needs is inline citations for the two cases mentioned above and this article can be promoted to GA.

 Done The two cases you've raised were both covered by citations already in the article, so I've added the cite note to the two sentences. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Pass AHeneen (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)