Talk:Chelsea station (MBTA)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chelsea station (MBTA)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll be looking at this one tomorrow. eviolite (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Images:

• All good - haven't seen annotated images being used for crops before, but it's probably fine
• Although, the caption for the map should read "East Everett station" instead of "The station" as it's ambiguous
  •  Done

Sourcing:

• Not sure what the Flickr image is meant to be citing
  • The one-story wooden station... Technically the Sanborn map also indicates that, but the Flickr image is an easier-to-understand source. (It's from a reputable historical group, so there shouldn't be RS issues.)
    •  Comment: Alright, if it's reliable then that's fine.
• Otherwise, everything is good

Lead:

• "The Boston and Maine Railroad and predecessor Eastern Railroad served an East Everett station nearby from 1880 until around 1950." This feels a bit awkward, maybe "From 1880 to around 1950, the Eastern Railroad and the Boston and Maine Railroad served East Everett station, near modern-day Chelsea station."? I'd just prefer to make it explicit the connection between the old railroads and this station
  •  Done Reworded.

Station layout:

• "at Everett Avenue" - maybe "on"?
  •  Done Reworded.
• What does "high-level" mean in this context?
  •  Done Wikilinked.
• Would it be helpful to also add in the fare zone?
  • I don't personally think so; while it's standard in the infobox, it doesn't seem particularly relevant in the prose.

History:

• Link Revere, Massachusetts
  •  Done
• Consider linking Main line (railway)
  •  Done
• Why is East Everett bolded?
  • It's the target of a redirect that's likely to see use - see MOS:BOLDREDIRECT
    •  Comment: I couldn't find which redirect you referred to so I created East Everett station.
      • Thanks! I've added a few categories to the redirect. On the technical side, Adjacent stations modules (Module:Adjacent stations/Boston and Maine Railroad in this case) also can act as redirects.
• Clarify where Boston and 2nd is in relation to the location of the current station (since there is no context for why a different station in another place is being discussed)
  •  Done
• "began studying an extension of" - consider changing to "began studying a proposed extension of"?
  •  Done
• Is there any more information on the "existing Chelsea station"? I assume this is not the same as the East Everett station so it should probably be talked about (or clarified if it was in a completely different location)
  • It's discussed and wikilinked in the previous paragraph.
• " with the commuter rail platforms at Bellingham Square closed at that time" - is there any reason for this?
  • As discussed in the paragraph beginning On October 30, 2013, the platforms at this Chelsea station were a direct replacement for those at Bellingham Square (which, confusingly, was formerly called Chelsea.) I'm open to any copyediting suggestions.
    •  Comment: Maybe it would help if it read "original commuter rail platforms at the site of Bellingham Square station"? Not really sure.
      • How does this look?

That's all, again a nice article. @Pi.1415926535: Placing on hold. eviolite (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: Thanks for the review! I've left my comments above - I implemented most of your suggestions, and I'm open to potential copyediting for the last few paragraphs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks, responded inline with  Comment:s. eviolite (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: Replies are above. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Everything looks good, happy to pass. Great work again, Pi.1415926535. eviolite (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)