Template:Did you know nominations/Marshfield station
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Marshfield station
Postcard of Marshfield station
... that Chicago's Marshfield station (pictured) had four tracks and three platforms, and involved three branch lines and an interurban?Source: https://www.chicago-l.org/stations/marshfield.html- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Make Me Prime Minister
- Comment: Note to promoter: I would really like this hook to be promoted with the image attached. I don't usually have my hooks promoted with an image, and I think this one looks rather compelling.
Created by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 00:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC).
@John M Wolfson: Thank you for creating another excellent article. Article is new enough, long enough, image is free with correct copyright notice, hook is within policy. I have three questions:
- 1. Who is Graham Garfield, and what makes his website Chicago-L.org a reliable source? I recognize the website does show a long bibliography.
- 2. Should the title be disambiguated? It strikes me there is likely to be confusion with Marshfield railway station and the station on Mount Washington Cog Railway (note the latter article erroneously links to this subject in its infobox)
- 3. Is there anything you could add to the hook to explain whether / why the setup of
four tracks and three platforms, and involved three branch lines and an interurban
is unique? It is quite hard for a non-specialist to understand whether this is interesting or not.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: Thanks for your comments. To answer your questions:
- 1. Garfield is currently the director of communications for the CTA, and has worked for the CTA his entire adult life. Given that and the bibliography, I'm sure that it's reliable, and I've even used it in FACs with some success.
- 2. No, for a couple of reasons. The first is that this was a significant rapid transit station in a major city, whereas the New Hampshire station is part of an inclined railway in the comparative wilderness, therefore this should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The second is that the software used in {{Adjacent stations}} for all Metropolitan lines, and the CA&E, rely on this page's title being "Marshfield station". A redirect wouldn't be fatal, but I do think it would be suboptimal given the above and my personal distate for the "redirected from" notice wherever unnecessary.
- 3. I don't have anything at the moment, but I hope the link to interurban will help provide some context, especially for non-American readers, and the image might provide some interest. Even as is, I've seen much boringer (:P) hooks at DYK, but you or someone else are certainly welcome to suggest another. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: Thanks for your comments. To answer your questions:
- Hi John M Wolfson, thanks for the clear responses. I am content with your responses on 1 and 2. On 3 I am still struggling. Here are some ideas for you which might help develop something more hooky:
- This source explains how complicated the junction was when it was first opened: Electric Railway Review. 1895. p. 264.
- This source says "This view of the Marshfield Junction and station looks east toward the neighborhood that had grown up near the "L" stop, transforming the formerly fashionable Near West Side into a more working-class neighborhood.""Marshfield Avenue Station of the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad". Encyclopedia of Chicago.
- This source says "A station was located immediately east of the junction, serving as the last chance to transfer between the various services before they diverged north, west, and south, respectively. The Marshfield Junction was a complicated place indeed." For what it's worth, I still don't understand why the Garfield Park line was a separate line, rather than just an extension of the main line - did people really need to change trains to keep going in the same direction, and if so who designed such nonsense? "Marshfield Junction". Chicago L.org: Towers & Junctions. 1954-04-04.
- My preference is the second one, as it will direct readers to look at your picture. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi John M Wolfson, thanks for the clear responses. I am content with your responses on 1 and 2. On 3 I am still struggling. Here are some ideas for you which might help develop something more hooky:
- Onceinawhile I'll get to the rest later, but FYI the Metropolitan main line was simply the union of the three branches, so Logan Square, Garfield Park, and Douglas Park trains served both their branches and the main line, so no transfers were necessary between the main line and branches (just between the branches themselves), and indeed many sources at the time did consider the Garfield branch a de facto extension of the main line. As a "fun fact", during the final days of the main line (after Marshfield closed), the main line and Garfield Park branch were, in fact, formally merged into one as the "Garfield Line". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: How about something simpler, like so:
ALT1 ... that three branch lines and an interurban diverged from the junction at Chicago's Marshfield station (pictured)?– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson: ok, perhaps with the following tweak?
- ALT1a ... that "elaborate special work" was needed to allow three branch lines and an interurban to diverge from the junction at Chicago's Marshfield station (pictured)?
If you like it, the "elaborate special work" quote (see p.267 of the Electric Railway Review) would need to be added to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: It works, although technically the interurban didn't start service until 1905, well after the rest of the lines. Probably okay for "artistic license", though. I can add the source in later today. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Great. I have struck the others. Let me know when done, and I will tick it with a reminder regarding your lead image request. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: Source added. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Great. I have struck the others. Let me know when done, and I will tick it with a reminder regarding your lead image request. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Good to go. Please note the nominator's original comment with a special request for the image to be used. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'll leave it for somebody else to make the final decision, but I'd recommend not promoting the image. At full size, it's a nice image, but unfortunately at the small DYK size, I can't tell what it's a picture of. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt that's much of an issue – I personally see that it is a historic image of infrastructure, and it ties in nicely with the hook in question. In any event, holding historic images such as this to such a high standard results in many striking images – such as James Thompson's plat of Chicago and a view of the Metropolitan main line – be passed up, and in the years I've done DYK I have only one image credit despite featuring several topics with significant or otherwise striking imagery, and quite frankly I'm disappointed and rather tired of it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with RoySmith that this is an issue under the DYK criteria, but I actually think an enlarged version works quite nicely. However, the hook also strikes me as rather routine, and not necessarily all that hooky. That might be due to my inexperience with the subject matter, so I'd like to ping Trainsandotherthings as a specialist – without providing a tick or otherwise, any thoughts, TAOT? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi leeky, thanks for the ping. I'd say that the hook isn't great, and generally not one I would have gone with. But reading the article, I really don't see anything better, either. I think it's about the best we can expect from the article as it stands now. I'm not very familiar with Chicago specifically, or if there's other source material specific to Chicago that might give us a better hook for this station. I do have a suspicion that the best material would be in things like Electric Railway Review, though. I'd offer to look but I'm pretty busy right now irl. Basically, it's not a hook I'd get excited about, but it's workable and at least slightly interesting. I've seen a lot worse. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, TAOT :) John M Wolfson, I'd suggest you try to find a better hook in the suggested source – if one can't be found, we can make a final call on the original hook. Does that work for you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi leeky, thanks for the ping. I'd say that the hook isn't great, and generally not one I would have gone with. But reading the article, I really don't see anything better, either. I think it's about the best we can expect from the article as it stands now. I'm not very familiar with Chicago specifically, or if there's other source material specific to Chicago that might give us a better hook for this station. I do have a suspicion that the best material would be in things like Electric Railway Review, though. I'd offer to look but I'm pretty busy right now irl. Basically, it's not a hook I'd get excited about, but it's workable and at least slightly interesting. I've seen a lot worse. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with RoySmith that this is an issue under the DYK criteria, but I actually think an enlarged version works quite nicely. However, the hook also strikes me as rather routine, and not necessarily all that hooky. That might be due to my inexperience with the subject matter, so I'd like to ping Trainsandotherthings as a specialist – without providing a tick or otherwise, any thoughts, TAOT? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt that's much of an issue – I personally see that it is a historic image of infrastructure, and it ties in nicely with the hook in question. In any event, holding historic images such as this to such a high standard results in many striking images – such as James Thompson's plat of Chicago and a view of the Metropolitan main line – be passed up, and in the years I've done DYK I have only one image credit despite featuring several topics with significant or otherwise striking imagery, and quite frankly I'm disappointed and rather tired of it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Anything interesting in the Review and having to do with the main line or Marshfield has already been incorporated into the article, so I think we're stuck with the original hook. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)