Talk:South Attleboro station
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Pi.1415926535 in topic GA Review
 | South Attleboro station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 12, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Attleboro station article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:South Attleboro station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
edit- The first para of 'Bus connections' is unsourced
- In infobox parking is 568, in body its 579.
- Both done. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Parking fee not required. Too much detail.
❯❯❯ S A H A 10:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's pretty commons for station articles. While I don't love it, parking fees are unfortunately one of the most common things that readers come here looking for. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pi.1415926535 true, but as we are going for GA, it needs to be omitted. ❯❯❯ S A H A 07:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. Given that it hasn't been an issue in half a dozen previous GAs of other MBTA Commuter Rail arguments, I don't see why it's an impediment to GA, nor why it is disallowed. Do you have any other comments , or is this the only remaining sticking point? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will go for a 2nd opinion then. ❯❯❯ S A H A 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535: ArnabSaha asked me to provide a second opinion (and I know I'm a little late). Normally I would suggest (but not require) excluding parking fees, since it's a gray area in WP:NOTGUIDE. However, because it's a relatively minor point and such fees are mentioned in similar good articles as well, I'd leave it alone for the sake of consistency. epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535 Good to go. As per the 2nd opinion provided by epicgenius. ❯❯❯ S A H A 14:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will go for a 2nd opinion then. ❯❯❯ S A H A 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. Given that it hasn't been an issue in half a dozen previous GAs of other MBTA Commuter Rail arguments, I don't see why it's an impediment to GA, nor why it is disallowed. Do you have any other comments , or is this the only remaining sticking point? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pi.1415926535 true, but as we are going for GA, it needs to be omitted. ❯❯❯ S A H A 07:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's pretty commons for station articles. While I don't love it, parking fees are unfortunately one of the most common things that readers come here looking for. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Putting on hold due to some issues. Couldn't find the parking space numbers and fees details in the citation. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Done Added a citation with both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
