Wikipedia

Talk:Suffolk Downs station/GA1

< Talk:Suffolk Downs station
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Found5dollar in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Found5dollar (talk · contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply


Excited to review this article. I know the MBTA very well as I grew up in the area but I have never been to this specific station. This is only my second GA review so please allow for a bit of novice level questioning through this process. I plan on starting the review later today. --Found5dollar (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

General

edit

Lead and Infobox

edit
  • I haven't poured through the rest of the article yet but it seems that there are many things in the infobox that are not sourced elsewhere in the article. A source for all of this needs to appear in one of the two places. The thigs I don't immediately see a source for are:
    • Location (the station's adress)
      •   Done
    • Tracks. I can find that there are 2 platforms in the text of the article but not that there are 2 tracks.
      • That's in the prose already: The surface-level station has two side platforms serving the two tracks of the Blue Line.
    • Parking
      •   Done
    • Bicycle facilities
      •   Done
  • Under "Lines" in the infobox why is it "Revere extension" and not "Blue Line"?
  • Are there any bus connections?
    • No, there are not. This is discussed in the history section.
  • Former names of the station would be helpful in the first sentence, that way they can be bolded here and not elsewhere in the article. This would also help clarify the station you are talking about when you use previous names for the station in the lead.
    • Any wikilinks to the former stations should be directly to the History section, so it's better for them to be bolded there.
      • Per MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDLEAD the first instances of a name should be bolded. Since you use the terms "Waldemar station" and "Belle Isle" in the lead they should be bolded there instead of later in the article. my suggestion would be to just have the first instances be right in the first sentence with "Suffolk Downs station, previously known as Waldemar and Belle Isle station, is an rapid transit station..." It is also a bit confusing as currently worded "Waldemar station opened in 1894 to serve a nearby development, and was soon renamed Belle Isle." We do not know what these two stations are yet. Telling us before this that the station was renamed would clear this up.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
        • That would be extremely misleading - the rapid transit station was never known by those names. I've separated the lede into three paragraphs which should help with clarity, but I strongly disagree that the names of the former stations should be bolded there rather than at the redirect target. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
          • Wait a second. I may be having a fundamental misunderstanding of what a train station is. Even though Waldemar/Belle Isle was at the same place as Suffolk Downs and they both were places that people could get on trains are they not the same station? Are they two distinct station becasue the service or type of train changed?--Found5dollar (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
            • Sorry, I'll try to explain my thoughts. My opinion is that there have been three separate stations – Waldemar/Belle Isle (1894-ca. 1925), Suffolk Downs (1935-1940), and Suffolk Downs (1952-present) – at the same site. The rapid transit station is separated from the first two by mode, operator, and twelve years. While the article about the rapid transit station should cover the previous stations (because of the shared location and right-of-way), I don't think it's correct to say that it's all the same station. Compare for example Bellingham Square station, which has no change in operator, and both modes and names actually overlap for a four-year period. While the post-2021 station there will share no physical components with the pre-2015 station, it's still a single station with a continuous history, unlike the three separate stations covered in this article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
              • Ah. I get it now. I thought that they all were considered one station that was just rebuilt a few times, I didn't realize they were considered separate entities entirely. That's why I just thought it was different names for the same thing. If they are considered separate station that are all covered by this article then yes, your bolding makes sense. I am unsure if this misunderstand is just completely because of my unfamiliarity of how train stations are categorized or if the article is unclear. It maybe helpful to state somewhere in the lead that the Suffolk Downs is the most current of three stations that were all at the same location. Also, perhaps dividing up the history section a bit differently so that each section talks about a different station instead of the different modes and renovations could help clarify this point? I'm not sure if that is the answer or not but it's something to think about.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've added a few words to the lede to clarify. I think the existing division of the history section, with three roughly equal sections, works well for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • "Service on the line ended in 1940; the Metropolitan Transportation Authority purchased the right-of-way to extend the East Boston Tunnel rapid transit line." this sentence confuses me. Did service end because the line was purchased?
    •   Done Added the 1941 purchase date to clarify.
  • "Suffolk Downs station opened with a single platform in 1952..." just two sentences earlier you said that Suffolk Downs station opened in 1935. can you differentiate these to renditions of the station somehow? Perhaps state the operator of the station or train line that was using it.
    •   Done Reworded to clarify.
  • I'd suggest "the redevelopment of the racetrack site" change to "a redevelopment of the racetrack site" since you have not discussed what the redevelopent is yet in the article.
    •   Done

Station Design

edit
  • "Suffolk Downs station is located at the east end of the Orient Heights neighborhood in East Boston." the source one sentence after this does not support this statement. Just that it is the next stop after Orient Heights station.
    •   Done Added a source that explicitly calls out the neighborhood name.
  • "The platforms are connected by a concrete-and-brick footbridge, divided into separate paid and unpaid corridors, which has stairs and ramps but no elevators." i might include here that the ramps make the station ADA accessible. There are plenty of non-accessible ramps out in the world.
  • This section leaves me with many questions:
    • Who designed the station?
    • What architectural style is it in? What are the notable architectural features of the structure?
    • What materials is the station made of?
    • Are there any enclosed spaces or is it completely open to the air?
    • I know the MBTA has a long history of requiring art in stations ( Arts on the Line and a robust percent for art program). Is there any art in this station and if not why not?
    • Any notable signage? when were digital countdown clocks added to the station?
    • Does the station have a parking lot or a parking garage?
      •   Done
    • Where does the station sit in relationship to its dedicated car and bike parking?
      •   Done
      • Unfortunately, reliable information about the station design and facilities is very limited. What's in the article now is about all there is.
        • I just dug up this article in Architectural Record that talks about the design, the architect, the materials, and even includes the overall budget for the station. All this can be included to fully explain the design if the station. [1] pp. 77-79.
          • Great find! I'll add material from that shortly.
            •   Done Expanded the section.

I have to run, I'll keep on reviewing later.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

BRB&L and streetcars

edit
  • "; there was initially no station at the modern site." This aside is a bit linguistically confusing to me. I'm assuming you mean the train line went through but there was no station. It was built later. Maybe think of rewording this t make it a bit clearer. is this aside even needed?
    •   Done Reworded.
  • "Waldemar station opened in 1894 to serve a new housing development on Orient Heights" did this housing development have a name?
    • Not that is named in contemporary or modern sources, unfortunately.
  • "The development failed in 1907; the station remained open, but closed in the mid-1920s." This sentences is about two different things. perhaps split it in two one about the development and one about the station?
    •   Done
  • "The structure suffered a number of fires in 1925 and 1926 caused by sparks from locomotives" perhaps mention that these were "passing locomotives" to strengthen that the station was closed at this time.
    •   Done
  • It might be worth mentioning that Waldemar/Belle Isle was constructed of wood to explain how it caught on fire so many time.
    •   Done
  • "It was initially only used for seasonal service to the Great Ocean Pier; the pier closed in 1893, but the Lynn and Boston Street Railway began operating the line full-time on July 17, 1893." Run on sentence. perhaps change the semi-colon to a comma and change "the pier closed in 1893," to "which closed in 1893", or just divide up into separate sentences.
    •   Done
  • "It passed through several successor companies; by the 1930s, the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway and the Boston Elevated Railway (BERy) jointly operated Maverick–Revere Beach through service on the line." That semicolon also feels out of place, perhaps just replace it with an and. Also the "It" at the beginning of the sentence should be clarified. did the line pass through several companies or Lynn and Boston Street Railway or the pier.
    •   Done Clarified.
  • "In 1930, the BERy constructed a small yard, Gladstone Loop, north of Waldemar Avenue" where is Waldemar avenue? I don't think this has been explained earlier.
    •   Done
  • "In 1928, the BRB&L was electrified with pre-pay stations - more like a rapid transit line than a conventional railroad." that "-" could be replaced with "making it" or some other link to create a full sentence.
    •   Done
  • Suffolk Downs should not be bolded here as it is already bolded at the top. no redirect for this word would bring you to this section.
    • Any redirect specifically for the BRB&L station would.
  • "the Eastern Mass sold..." I'm assuming this is an abbreviation for "the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway", but this abbreviation is not defined earlier.
    •   Done
  • "Suffolk Downs station was sold to a private owner." when did this happen? was it with the closing of BRB&L in 1940? a simple "and" instead of the period separating these two sentences would likely solve this.
    •   Done Clarified.

Have to run again. will keep going later.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rapid transit

edit
  • "In 1941, the Boston Elevated Railway bought the BRB&L right of way from Day Square to Revere Beach for use as a high-speed trolley line similar to the Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line; these plans were delayed by the onset of World War II." These should be two sentences. The semicolon can just be a period.
    •   Done
  • "be extended to Lynn via the BBRB&L route rather than using it for a trolley line." is the "it" here referring to the East Boston Tunnel Line or the BBRB&L route?
    •   Done
  • "rapid transit line, and construction began in October 1948." this comma is unneeded.
    •   Done
  • "East Boston, Chelsea, and Revere" It maybe helpful to wikilink Chelsea and Revere. I don't think they are linked earlier.
    •   Done
  • " south of the former BRB&L alignment; there was no replacement for the Suffolk Downs spur" this semicolon could just be a period as well.
    •   Done
  • "the Suffolk Downs spur." I'm assuming this spur is the same as "The Boston Elevated Railway also opened a streetcar spur from Gladstone Loop to the track." previously mentioned. it may be helpful to use the same terms for this spur to avoid confusion. You discuss this spur quite a bit later so I just want to make sure these are the same ones.
    •   Done Added a word to clarify.
  • "A one-stop rapid transit extension to Suffolk Downs opened on April 21, 1952 – the first day of the racing season" this dash can just be a comma. It also may be worth using the name for this station here if it had one.
    • Clarified the station name, but I think the endash works better here.
  • "was considered, but rejected due to cost." this comma is not needed.
    • I think the comma helps to separate the clauses.
  • "by the extension to Wonderland; it was discontinued ". I think "; it" would be better served with "and".
    •   Done
  • "with the East Boston Tunnel route becoming the Blue Line[25]" missing a period at the end of this sentence
    •   Done
  • This is a total aside, but if it exists a map or areal of the area showing the station and the spur to the race track would be very helpful to help understand how all these lines and places interact. No big deal if this isn't a thing.

Renovations

edit
  • This station has had so many fires!
    • Not quite as bad as Berlin station, which had three separate station buildings destroyed by fire!
  • "A fire on February 14, 1976 destroyed much of the wooden station.[26] Only the inbound platform remained open, which hurt attendance at races.[25][27]" I might tie that the fire was the cause the outbound platform closed with a "due to the fire".
    •   Done
  • "From February 1 to December 16, 1981, Sunday service between Orient Heights and Wonderland was replaced by shuttle buses.[25]"was this also due to the fire or some other reason? if the gist of this paragraph is that the station slowly fell into disuse it might be worth stating that and/or making it its own paragraph separate from the grants and construction of the new station further in this paragraph.
    • I've clarified that this was due to budget cuts. It's a bit awkwardly placed, but I can't find a better place, and it's too short for a separate paragraph.
  • "and a $2.5 million contract" I might clarify this as a "construction contract".
    •   Done
  • "Construction began on September 17, but was soon suspended until March 1983 due to winter conditions.[29] The station closed for reconstruction in 1983, and the new station fully opened on January 3, 1984.[30]" I'm a bit confused as to when the station closed in relationship to the reconstruction process. Did it close when construction restarted in March?
    • I assume so, but I can't find a source that says exactly when it closed.
  • "Suffolk Downs was the first accessible station on the Blue Line; not until renovations to State finished in 1987 was there another." this sentence just reads a little awkwardly. id suggest something along the lines of "Suffolk Downs was the first accessible station on the Blue Line and remained the sole accessible station until the 1987 renovation of State station." but whatever works.
    •   Done
  • "The footbridge was closed on March 22, 2021, due to structural deterioration; the station remained open.[34]" I'd replace this semicolon with a "but". Also with this fact I might explain a bit about how people cross over now. do they have to go one stop in the wrong direction then change over there? If they need to get to a booth attendant are they stuck if they are on the outbound side since there isn't one there?
    •   Done
  • "The redevelopment of the Suffolk Downs site is expected to substantially increase ridership to Suffolk Downs and Beachmont stations" Beachmont shouldn't be linked here as it is linked earlier in the section.
    •   Done
  • "The developer has committed $20 million for transit projects, including modifications to both stations.[35][36]" who is the developer? I'm assuming there are no plans yet on what the actual modifications are, just a commitment to spend money to make it better.
    • Added the developer name. No details are out yet, unfortunately.

Images

edit
  • Alt text all great except for the black and white image in "renovations". it has a stray "=" in the caption.
    •   Done
  • The placement of the first image, "The footbridge structure at the station" is causing sandwiching between it and the infobox. This should be avoided.
    • I don't think that is really an issue with modern screens with default sizes (that MOS section was written in 2007, if I recall correctly), especially since mobile browsers typically put a hard clear between sections.
      • I still think it is a valid part of the MoS as not everyone has modern screens. Granted, The GA criteria doesn't call out that the article needs to follow the Images section of the MoS so I can't fault you for this decision.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • There is only one image where I question the copyright, "Construction of the new station in 1983." It was pulled from this document[2]. On page 8 of the document there is an attribution but not a pure copyright notice. To be quite honest I don't know enough of what makes a true copyright notice to understand if it is appropriate or not. I welcome your input.
  • "The footbridge structure at the station" While part of the foot bridge is in this image it doesn't really show the full structure. The image is good but shows more of the platform. Maybe think of being a bit clearer in what this image is mainly showing in the caption.
    •   Done

References

edit
  • you have two formats for the dates of articles in your references. Some are parenthetical after the author and some are inline towards the end of the citation. It doesnt matter what kind of citation you use but they should be consistent.
  • The same is also true with some titles in quotes and some in italics. I believe that italics are used for entire works and quotes are used for sections of larger works but it doesn't seem this is what you are doing at all times. "A guide to ridership data" and The Boston, Revere Beach and Lynn Narrow Gauge Railroad both seem like titles for booklets to me but have different formatting here. Please let me know there is a difference between these two types that I am not catching.
    • I use {{cite book}} for books and {{cite book}} for PDF government reports, and the citation templates automatically format. The former document is a report; the latter document was a full-length book.
  • Cite #5 has "Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority" wikilinked but earlier cites are from the same organization. Its fine to only wikilink it once but it should be the first instance.
    • That wikilink is in the template; I don't think I can disable it here without messing with the template code a bunch.
      • Yeah, i personally rarely use the cite templates just for these reasons. It make sit so much tougher to fix stuff like this. As long as you are consistant in your template use there must me some reason behind the discrepancies that I just don't understand. no biggie.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Assume good faith with references that are offline or that I can not access.
  • I randomly chose 5 cites and they all matched up with what they claimed to be citing.

That's it for my first pass of notes! I know you added quite a bit to the design section so once these are all buttoned up ill do one last readthrough of the article to catch anythign new or anythign that I may have missed.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Found5dollar: Thanks for the highly detailed review! I think I've addressed all your comments so far. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Last couple of notes

edit
  • Lead - "Suffolk Downs station is an rapid transit station" that "an" should be "a"
    •   Done
  • Lead - "Suffolk Downs station has two side platforms, with a concrete-and-brick footbridge connecting them;" isn't the footbridge steel?
    •   Done
  • Lead - "footbridge connecting them; it is accessible." this "it" is a bit unclear. Perhaps "footbridge connecting them making the station accessible." or "footbridge connecting them. The station is accessible."
    •   Done
  • YAS. that new way of wording really clears up that there were 2 stations before this on.
  • Station design - "It has a hierarchy of three materials:" does this "It" relate to the bridge or the station in whole?
    •   Done Clarified.
  • Station design - "Open forms provide cover for passenger, but allow the single station agent or a police officer outside to surveil the whole station."" passenger" should be plural, "passengers"
    •   Done
  • Station design - " The brick arches were partially medieval in design – and partially just the architect's preference.[6]:77" if i remember correctly this was explicitly about the arches at the entrances, not all the arches in the station, but i could be wrong.
    • The article says that mark entries and the ends of ramps and stairways; I think the current wording is fine?
  • Rapid transit - "In 1947, the newly formed Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) decided to build to Lynn as a rapid transit line." decided to build what? maybe this would be clearer if still factually correct? ""In 1947, the newly formed Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) decided to build a rapid transit line to Lynn."
    •   Done
  • Renovations - Orient Heights station is wikilinked twice in this section. only need one.
    •   Done

That's it! if we can clear up these last couple of notes this should be good to go.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Found5dollar: I think I got everything! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Pi.1415926535: Amazing! great job with the article! all good!--Found5dollar (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

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 (references):  
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suffolk_Downs_station/GA1&oldid=1020884712"