Jump to content

Talk:Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 02:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Copyvio check

[edit]

Earwig says good to go.

Files

[edit]

All images are relevant, high quality and copyright-free:

File:Chicago-Metropolitan-Station.png: valid public domain rationale;
File:1715-West-Chicago.jpg: CC0 1.0, uploaded to Commons by nominator (thanks!);
File:California CTA Blue Line Station.jpg: CC-BY-SA 2.0.

Prose

[edit]
  • "The Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Company" – should company be capitalised?
    • As a proper noun, yes.
      • Noted.
  • Wikilink right of way.
    • Done.
  • "serve various parts of Chicago's west side" – wikilink Chicago.
  • "would come back to haunt the company" – reads rather unencyclopaedic; recommend rephrasing.
    • Rephrased.
  • "creating the "West-Northwest Route" that" – are the quotations necessary?
    • As a route that no longer exists and does not/should not have an article, I think so.
  • Forgive me as I am unfamiliar with the relevant policies—is the death of Sidor Bobel notable enough to be mentioned? Additionally, dedicating a section to this death might give it unbalanced notability IMO.
    • I originally added it for DYK purposes since I'd like a Four Award for this, but the commercial building should suffice for it. I still think it differentiates this station from its neighbors, but I'm open to removing it. If it's included, it doesn't belong in any other section IMO.
      • Well, are pedestrian train station-related deaths infrequent? The rarer they are the more notable including this would be in my view.
  • The sentence starting "The station house, made of red pressed brick" is quite long; could it be split into two? Relatedly:
    • Done
  • Is "specifically marked "Entrance" and "Exit"" noteworthy?
    • IIRC, Garfield mentions it. While he's not the definitive authority here (as we've discussed before), I still think it's worthy of comment.
  • "in response to a 1918 influenza outbreak" – does it happen to be the 1918 flu pandemic?
    • I highly suspect so, but Moffat doesn't expressly state as such.
      • Fair enough.
  • "Chicago Avenue had two streetcar lines;" – recommend replacing the semicolon with an en dash to avoid using it twice in this sentence.
    • Rephrased it another way.
  • I doubt there needs to be two paragraphs in Ridership; recommend merging into one.

Refs

[edit]

All sources used are either RS or used appropriately. Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 5, 9, 16, 25, 31, 37 or 49. Note that I could not find access to Moffat, but will assume good faith.

  • Recommend using Template:Cite map for ref 5. Also, mention the publisher.
  • In Works cited, change Archive.org to Internet Archive.

Other

[edit]

Short desc, WP:ALT text, coords, infobox, nav and cats good.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Bruxton (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Building by Chicago station
Building by Chicago station

Improved to Good Article status by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 01:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Chicago station (CTA Logan Square branch), so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @John M Wolfson: Good article. but what makes Forgotten chicago a reliable source? Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the assumption that forgotten chicago can be considered reliable. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_station_(CTA_Logan_Square_branch)&oldid=1205545581"