Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marshfield station/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2023 [1].

Marshfield station

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most complicated junction on the Chicago "L", and the station that served it. The Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad had a trunk line reaching west from downtown to Marshfield, where it split in three to serve all throughout Chicago's west side. It chose Marshfield Avenue, a minor street next to the much more prominent Ashland Avenue, to serve as this junction point, which actually contained two junctions; a crossover east of the station, and a another one west of it. Even more crazily, it served an interurban (essentially a light form of commuter rail) known as the Chicago Aurora and Elgin Railroad (CA&E) for much of its existence. Alas (or, really, fortunately for residents), a new line and subway to go downtown was constructed removing the northern part of the junction and, eventually, the station itself. The western part of the junction has a spiritual successor that still exists, but not the station.

Major thanks to Steelkamp for GA reviewing this article and helping me sort out and arrange the loads of information on the topic; this was not your neighborhood "L" stop. I would like this review to conclude by the end of April for WikiCup purposes, but I am well aware how little control anyone has on that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom pinging

It makes me slightly nervous that this has not received any feedback after a whole week and has no watchers other than myself, so I'm silently (re-)pinging certain users here. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @John M Wolfson. I can review this nomination soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not forgotten about this nomination. I'll take a look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

Lead:

"branched into three branches" - Can this be rephrased in a way that's not repetitive?
- Done.
"The Metropolitan was one of four companies establishing the "L"." - I feel like this should be in the past tense ("one of four companies that had established the "L"").
- Since this is in the context of the "L"'s founding in the 1890s, I somewhat disagree, but I think "that established" is a good compromise.
"All told, they would replace the Logan Square branch..." - I also don't think "all told" is necessary here, since the previous sentence summarizes these changes.
- Disagree, given the magnitude of the lines' rearrangements.
  - I apologize that I didn't make it clear earlier, but I meant that the phrase "all told" feels informal. I would've personally gone with "These projects would replace the Logan Square branch". Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's odd, I've always considered "all told" if anything a bit stuffy. Hopefully my new tweak works. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"which led to the Garfield Park trackage being replaced by temporary right of way and eliminating its service at Marshfield in 1953" - The referent of "it" is unclear in this case. I assume you mean that Garfield Park service is being eliminated?
- Yes; hopefully I've clarified without having to say "Garfield Park" twice.
"at the same time, the CA&E also ended service on the affected route" - "Also" is redundant to "at the same time".
- I somewhat disagree (that the CA&E discontinued service in addition to the Garfield Park service is different enough from it being discontinued at the same time that I feel both ought to be included for clarity's sake), but hopefully I've reworded it to be better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your current wording works for me. Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it seems like I have forgotten about this as well. I may look at the "History" section tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment by Richard Nevell

I like the use of a chart to illustrate ridership data. At 1000px it is a touch wide; in preview mode 500px seems to work pretty well, and while I think you'd still need to scroll on mobile it does reduce how much. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Richard Nevell: I tried to make the graph like a science paper (which is also why the caption is on top and the graph is separated from the text, unlike the images) but it appears that graphs don't allow for sizing relative to the page width. 500px is quite better for mobile users, thankfully. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving per above. The normal two-week waiting period is waived here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.