Talk:Church Street station (MBTA)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 20:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Why is the name in infobox written in caps? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 14:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That style is applied to all MBTA station articles to match the style of actual station signage. There's been some back-and-forth about that; I don't have a particular opinion, but it's probably outside the scope of a single GA.
  - Maybe you can write is like, "Church Street station (stylised as CHURCH STREET) is an under-construction" Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that's necessary; it's only stylized that way on station signs and not in sources. Again, this is a discussion that would affect over 300 MBTA station articles, so it's not really in scope here.
Replace the bolded words with " " Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 14:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Partly done I left Acushnet station bold per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink the first New Bedford, Boston etc. words in the body. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 14:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Change citation [8] to sentence case (MOS:ALLCAPS) Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Disabled access mentioned in infobox, but not in body. Also it doesnt have citation.
- Done Added to the station layout section, as it's covered in the existing citation.
"The former Acushnet station, located..." - this introduction of Acushnet station feels a bit abrupt. While reading for the first time, I was unable to find its connection with Church Street station. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe
- Done Added a couple words to clarify.

@ArnabSaha: Thanks for the review! I've replied to your comments above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I feel other than these minor things, the article is fine. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabSaha: Replied above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passed 13:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)