Talk:Winschoten railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mattbuck (talk · contribs) 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember reviewing this or something similar before, but apparently it wasn't this one because there's no previous GA nom. I'm reviewing this because it's for some reason on my watchlist, and at first glance this looks like it's pretty close to GA status. Plus trains! Anyway, onwards... -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I am going to look at your comments. – Editør (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Detailed review

• Layout
  • My preference would be to have the description section immediately following the lead, then services, then history. I feel this puts the important information (how it is now, what trains you can get) up front.

    I've been unsure about the article structure, but putting the history section last seems strange. I've made some structural changes and removed the 'description' heading. – Editør (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    I agree it's a bit weird, but I look at it this way - when you come to an article about a railway station, the most important things are what it's like now and what trains you can catch there. History is just a nice thing to have, as is future. Also having the description up front allows all the other sections to refer to it, so people have a mental picture of the station to compare to the past. I'd suggest a look at Stapleton Road for an example. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    I think for Winschoten, the current structure is alright. I don't think we need to have the same structure for all station articles. – Editør (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    OK, I'm not too fussed. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Is there any possibility of a "future" section?

    I don't think it will have enough content at the moment. – Editør (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Fair enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Please make all images the same width - the bus station in 1995 is small compared to the others.

    The image has the standard thumb width of 220px, but uses {{CSS image crop}} which doesn't allow for a dynamic width with upright=1. – Editør (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    I've removed the image and added a diagram of the track layout that is more informative – Editør (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Is the line really single track beyond the station as the diagram implies? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, between Zuidbroek and Bad Nieuweschans, it is a single track railway [1]. – Editør (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    The diagram shows that in both directions. It would probably be worth mentioning in prose that the line is single-track around the station. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

     Done – Editør (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't think the interior train photo is really relevant.

     Done I agree, I've removed the photo and added a recently uploaded photo of buses at the station in the services section. – Editør (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    Hm, small buses! -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• General comments
  • There seems to be a bit of overlinking of basic concepts (WP:OVERLINK).

     Done I've removed some links. – Editør (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Lead
  • No need to link "railway station".

    I disagree, there might be some overlinking in the article, but I prefer a link like this in the definition. – Editør (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • "The train services" could probably read better as "Train services".

     Done – Editør (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • "Westerbork" -> "the Westerbork transit camp"

     Done – Editør (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Perhaps mention the bus station in the history bit of the lead.

    I don't know when the bus services started, only when the roofed bus station was completed. I think that is not important enough for the railway station to be in the lead and the bus connections are already mentioned in the third paragraph. – Editør (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• History
  • Second paragraph second sentence - I think ref [5] should be at the end of the sentence.

     Done – Editør (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Second paragraph second sentence - perhaps reword to "Services began operating beyond Winschoten to Nieuweschans in November 1868, and to Leer in Germany in December 1876, when the Harlingen–Nieuweschans railway was connected to the Ihrhove–Nieuweschans railway.[3][5]"

     Done I've reworded the sentence similar to your suggestion. – Editør (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • You say the station building was expanded in 1904, but you don't state what facilities it had originally.

    There seems to have been an office for the stationsdienst (station service) employees [2] and presumably a waiting room or maybe separate waiting rooms for different ticket classes. I cannot find a clear and explicit description, so I am not sure what I should add. – Editør (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    That's a bit disappointing, but oh well, nothing that can be done about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Fourth paragraph - I would merge this a bit, to "Arriva bought all shares of NoordNed in 2003,[12] and in 2005 dropped the NoordNed branding, with the services now operating as Arriva.[13]"

     Done I've merged the sentences. – Editør (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Fourth paragraph - Again, merge the last two sentences.

     Done – Editør (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Why is the station being restored to its 1904 condition?

    Based on an article about the restoration, I believe it is partly because people find the building in its 1904 state pretier/more authentic ("improvement of the quality of the surroundings") and partly because it would make the station or station area safer ("increasing the social safety"). I'm not sure how to use these elements for the article. – Editør (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    I'd suggest something along the lines of "... as part of a project to improve the station ambience." -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

     Done – Editør (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Description
  • Location sentence 1 - this seems to run on a bit, using repeated "in the" forms. Consider revising it.

     Done I've tried the break the repetition with a subordinate clause. – Editør (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    That's fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Location - Heiligerlee and Ulsda railway stops? Why are these stops but Winschoten a station? Is there an actual difference (for instance UK railways used to have "halt"s, where trains would not stop regularly, but could stop upon request).

    The Stationsweb site uses stopplaats for both Heiligerlee [3] and Ulsda [4], which literally means 'stop place'. I don't know the exact definition and I couldn't find it at Stationsweb. It seems plausible that it is similar to 'halt' in the UK. Although I believe it merits further investigation, don't you think it is outside the scope of this article? – Editør (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    I figure it's something a reader might reasonably ask. I've revised the sentence to obviate the issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    I appreciate your effort to evade the problem, but I am not happy with the solution (information/grammar/style). I looked into it a little further. The Dutch article nl:spoorweghalte says more or less the same as the English section on railway stop, a railway stop or stopplaats is a train stop at a section of the rails (baanvak) without junctions, switches, or extra tracks to pass stopped trains. I am changing most of it back and will link railway stop directly, so the term is explained there. – Editør (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Location - I'm not sure there's a need for five mileages - I wouldn't mention the distance to the adjacent stops, just to the terminus / major junction.

    I somewhat agree with your point. This is why I have included all five stations: Harlingen Haven is a terminus station, Groningen is major junction, Zuidbroek is a minor junction, and Bad Nieuweschans is the last station on the Harlingen-Nieuweschans railway (not a terminus station because the railway is connected to the Ihrhove–Nieuweschans railway). I thought it would be informative to see how far both of the nearest stations were, so I also included Scheemda (Bad Nieuweschans was already listed). I could leave out Zuidbroek and Scheemda, if that satisfies you, although I wonder if it is really an improvement. – Editør (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

    OK then. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Location - Move [16] to the end of the sentence.

     Done – Editør (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Building second sentence - Split this up, eg "It is of the type SS 3rd class, which was designed by Karel Hendrik van Brederode.[1] SS 3rd class was chosen instead of the smaller SS 4th class because of the importance of Winschoten as a commercial center.[10] Eight stations of 3rd class were built, of which..."

     Done (changed the third sentence slightly different from your suggestion) – Editør (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Layout - Unlink "railway track" and "railway platform".

     Done – Editør (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Layout - Mention that the railway runs roughly east/west, and that the building is on the north side of the line.

     Done – Editør (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Layout - How is the station laid out? There are three lines but two platforms, so clearly one of the lines lacks a platform. Judging by the photos the layout is Building track platform track track, but this needs to be made clear from the text. I'm guessing the third track is therefore a passing loop for freight?

    I've added a map of the track layout. – Editør (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

     Done Added description in the text. – Editør (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Is the only way between the platforms via a crossing at track level, rather than any sort of bridge or underpass? Is this common in the Netherlands? It's not something you'd get in the UK usually unless the station sees very little traffic.

    Yes, it is only at track level and I've seen it at other railway stations in the Netherlands. – Editør (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Layout - Suggest rewording the initial part: "The railway through Winschoten is on an east/west alignment, with the station building to the north side of the line. There are three tracks, with platforms on the northern side of the northernmost and central tracks, with the southern track forming a passing loop. The northern platform, platform 1, is partly covered by a roof attached to the station building, and serves trains towards Groningen. Platform 2 serves trains towards Bad Nieuweschans.[18] Access between the platforms is via a level crossing with wheelchair ramps. Both platforms have tactile paving and passenger information systems.[18][21]"

     Done – I've used most of your suggested wording. – Editør (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Delink bus station and taxicab stand.

     Done – Editør (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Services
  • I would remove the list of stations, per WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Perhaps reword as "There are two train services which call at Winschoten - the Stoptreinen 20100/Regionalbahnen 57 is a service from Groningen to Leer, calling at all stations. In addition the Stoptrein 37500 operates an all-stations service between Groningen and Winschoten, extending to Bad Nieuweschans during peak hours."

    I am uncertain about your suggestion. Although it would give the section a cleaner look, the list is not very long for this station and shows the direct destinations, like many airport articles have a list of their direct destinations. I lean towards leaving the list in in this case. I wouldn't use the list for the Groningen railway station with 10+ services. – Editør (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    I still don't think it's suitable here. I'll grant you that it is easy to list all the stations here because of the simple calling pattern and the lack of long-distance services, however I don't think it's something which should be encouraged. Perhaps Redrose64 can give more guidance on this. My preference would be to say something along the lines of from X to Y, calling at all stations. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

    I don't have much experience with the conventions for Dutch railway stations. The convention for UK railway stations is that on the station articles we show which routes the station is on, and which stations are adjacent on each route. Detailed information like stopping patterns and service frequencies are best covered on the article for the route. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

    Redrose64, thank you for also commenting on the issue.

    In general, the article doesn't violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE, because the services section does not include the entire timetable [5] and in summarizing follows the advice in the Wikipedia essay. However, it is different from the British station articles that I've seen, that have the rail transport succession templates in the article body, I think this is what Redrose64 described. As far as I know, all Dutch station articles have these templates in their infoboxes. I think the inclusion of the list of direct destinations should be decided on an article to article basis. In this case, the two bullet point list with destinations is informative to the reader and is not cluttering the article, so I would like to include it. – Editør (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Both stoptreinen and sneltrein seem to link to the same place and don't have their own articles - they could perhaps be explained in the text instead. Make it clear the sneltrain would be limited-stop.

    I've added "limited-stop". – Editør (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, stoptrein and sneltrein don't have their own articles at this time, but I still think it is informative to link both of them and not give their definitions here. – Editør (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

    I've also added "all-stop" for stoptrein. – Editør (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

All in all a well-written article. All the points above are relatively minor, and I think should be easily fixable. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed many of your comments, but I will have another look at your points about the 1904 expansion, the station layout, and the services later. – Editør (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll be away until Monday, will review when I'm back. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I believe I've now addressed all your comments. – Editør (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few minor wording changes. I think there are two outstanding issues now - the timetable issue and the question of why the station is bring restored to 1904. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've responded to both issues. – Editør (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

One changed and the other I respect your argument on. I'm happy to promote this. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and suggestions for improvement. – Editør (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh, it was a peer review I did for this article previously! Anyway, glad to see it's at GA status now, well done. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)