Talk:Readville station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 15:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) 15:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

General comments

This article has some substance, while not being overly long, with a good number of photographs and references. It follows the standard format for MBTA station articles, including only three sections of layout, history and bus connections plus a short lead. There's a few external links, although no further reading or suchlike. Checklinks reports a lone dead link, which I'm sure can be fixed, and there are no ambiguous links, either. Daily traffic is around 13 views per day, so while not exactly the highest traffic, still worthy of being high quality for those that do read it.

• •  Done I'm not seeing the dead link on CL now, so I think one of my previous edits got it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• MBTA is referred to several times, but never in the full form.
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• A brief explanation of where the Fairmound and Franklin Lines run from/to would be useful.
  •  Not done Readville is neither a terminal nor a particularly important point, so I think that information belongs in the articles on the lines and not necessarily in the articles about stations on the lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Section analysis

After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing {{done}} after the item.

Lead

• The link to [[Boston, Massachusetts]] needs breaking into [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]].
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Is Hyde Park often referred to as a section? Easier reading may be a word such as locality or neighborhood.
  •  Done Readville is the section of the Hyde Park neightborhood; is the new wording good? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • And now I've seen other claims that it's a completely separate neighborhood. Neighborhoods in Boston as notoriously ill-defined. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• The lead, other than the first sentence, doesn't talk about anything other than what lines and platforms there are. As it is meant to summarize the rest of the article, why not add something of its history and usage? Recent/future developments?
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Station layout

• First off, this should surely be lower down, as the history section would usually come first (see Yawkey, Lynn).
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• There's only one citation before subsection Railroad yards. We need more.
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• "42-acre 5-Yard" needs {{convert}}
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm interested in why Amtrak received the property one day after Conrail. Can a reason be elaborated?
  •  Not done That appears to just be a legal technicality of the Penn Central to Conrail transition, but I don't have the information to fully explain why without OR / speculation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• The part about solar panels seems outdated. October 2013 has been and gone, so did it get completed? Has it been successful?
  •  Done The latest update I could find was January 2015; Google Earth imagery for June 6th doesn't show it but solar panels set up quickly so I can't confirm whether or not construction was actually done in June. That ok for now? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

History

• As above, should be the first section.
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Why is the station called Readville? It's located in Hyde Park, right?
  •  Done I can add where the Readville neighborhood-section name comes from in the lede as well, but I'm not finding good citations on who Mr. RRead actually was. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• The Norfolk County passed into the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad isn't very clear. Would suggest "The Norfolk County Railroad became the Boston..."
  •  Done The actual corporate history is insanely complicated (and I may add a few choice details in time) but "acquired" works for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Can you say why it was known as Blue Hills and why it was changed in 1888?
  •  Partly done I know why the station was originally named that, but I can't find why it was changed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• What is the upper level at Wolcott Square?
  •  Done Changed the wording a bit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• The two-story station building burned in June 1983. Burned down, surely. Any cause of fire given? Was it subsequently demolished?
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• "handicapped-accessible" doesn't seem to read right. Maybe lose the middle "ped", and introduce some continuity in terms of en dashes between the uses in the MBTA era and Proposed Orange Line extension subsections
  •  Partly done Proper use is somewhat inconsistent, but best practice seems to be "handicapped-accessible" when preceding a noun and "handicapped accessible" when starting alone. I've made this usage consistent across the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• The design contract was awarded in 2012, and a construction contract will be awarded in 2015. Outdated. Needs rewriting (and sourcing) to reflect more recent events.
  •  Not done I changed the wording, but no further information is available. The MBTA is (since early this year) controlled by a extremely conservative fiscal board due to political pressures, so a number of line item contracts like this one have been very slow to be awarded with no available information about their status. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• The extension is still periodically discussed. - by whom? where, how, why? More citations..
  •  Done I've removed that first sentence to let the cited fact (the 2004 PMT) speak for itself. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bus connections

• Unsourced - I suggest [1]
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

---

No other issues

References

The number of each reference I give is correct as of revision 694170599; if any have been added since then it will have moved numbers.

If there is no comment on a reference assume I have reviewed it and found no problems.

• Ref 1 can't give 2013 daily inbound averages because it was published in 2010. It doesn't mention the figures 365 or 256 for Readville within it. Needs changing to a better (and more up to date) source (but can keep it for the claim of "maintenance facility and layover yard")
  •  Done I updated the numbers to a new Bluebook version in a previous edit, but forgot to update the citation itself. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Refs 3, 12, 14, 15 and 20 are not very explicit, as it requires studying of the map to see what it's trying to prove. Any better sources? Otherwise, it'll do
  •  Not done Unfortunately, that's the best I have without delving into OR. Further historical sources with more focused details may pop up later while I'm looking up something completely different - there are a number of old Railroad Commissioners reports which are poorly searchable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ref 5 doesn't mention the storage of railroad-related materials or anything to do with November 11, 1987. Just take it out of there
  •  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ref 16 mentions January 27, 1973 as the date "MBTA acquired most of the Penn Central commuter rail right of way". However, the article says January 23. Which is correct?
  •  Done An old typo. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can put a tick after or strike through any items which have been addressed that would be useful. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) 16:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123: I believe I've now fixed all the fixable problems you brought up. There's still a few remaining - mostly because some historical data is very hard to come by - but I hope the article is now GA quality. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes in such a timely way. I'll check through the GA criteria tomorrow to see if the article's up to standard. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations. I'll promote to GA now. Rcsprinter¹²³ (message) 20:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for all your help! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)