Talk:Cleveland Lakefront Station/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Sportsguy17 (T • C)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking the time to review. There are a few things I will still add during the review, including former services, which perhaps would cover the 80s and 90s in the History section or I could create a Former Services section. Otherwise, I'll just do what you find is necessary and of course a final round of copy editing. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds great. How about this? After you finish all the additions then I'll start my review. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave a note on this page when you are done. But really, I'm willing to take any course you are comfortable with. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 16:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Seabuckthorn:, I'm ready for the review. See Sturtevant (Amtrak station) as an example, plus or minus certain things that apply to each station. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds great. How about this? After you finish all the additions then I'll start my review. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave a note on this page when you are done. But really, I'm willing to take any course you are comfortable with. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 16:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
Done
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: good (Thorough check on Google.)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
Cross-checked with the other FAs: Aldwych tube station, Brill railway station, Brill Tramway, Quainton Road railway station, Westcott railway station, Wood Siding railway station, Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station, Waddesdon Road railway station & Herne Hill railway station. Also referred one GA Sturtevant (Amtrak station).
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) & (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
I'll level with you: the article will need a lot of work before it attains GA status. But if anyone's up to the task, I figure it's you, Sportsguy17. I can't promise to be an easy reviewer for this article, but I can promise to be fair, patient, and consistent. I think the largest issue, GA 3, will take the most work, and I’ll go back through for details once these are addressed. If you disagree with any of my recommendations, let me know and we'll discuss it. I'm not inflexible; like you, my main concern is making this article the best it can be. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 20:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Seabuckthorn: I have fixed #3 to the extent I could. I made an Infrastructure section so that it would follow a historical timeline like you suggested. Lakefront Station has had so few changes to it that there is not much about it from the '80s and '90s. Regarding the lead, there's not much left to add, maybe copy edit and mention it, but otherwise I think its good. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm not sure you understood my review correctly or may be I failed in explaining it clearly to you. I never asked you to focus on the "infrastructure" as a way to fix the issues highlighted in the review. The issue is "The History section should be clearly delineated. It has currently only one relevant statement ... and the rest is description of infrastructure." I meant the history section should be expanded by exploring more reliable sources and not by rearranging content within the article. I mentioned few examples as to how the history section should be. I also think the proper place for infrastructure is within the Services section without creating a subsection of "infrastructure" but that's not the major issue. The main drawback is, I believe, the article does not cover major aspects because it lacks a proper history section which is standard in such articles. I have to say, I think I'll have to fail it if this major issue is not addressed. I hope I don't discourage you in this because it's a Wikicup participant. Let me know if you disagree with me. I'll seek second opinion and help from other more experienced reviewers in order to ensure that I'm giving a fair review here. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Seabuckthorn: And here's the interesting thing about Lakefront Station: it has had little to no change since its opening in 1977: the Pennsylvanian being the only truly notable change. Plus, Infrastructure and Service has a lot to do with the station. The design of the station interior does matter to an extent, considering the lack of renovation. Its services are also pretty important. I digged for hours trying to find stuff about the '80s and '90s and couldn't even find photos. That said, it covers the main, most notable topics: its construction and reasoning and its lack of renovation. Moving the infrastructure section made it flow better and less choppy. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're doing great work, and I hope you don't misunderstand me. I'm just trying to help you by putting my assessment as clearly and as candidly as possible. I agree with your point that "Infrastructure and Service has a lot to do with the station" but I believe they are adequately represented in the article at the moment. If you notice your above response you are focusing and discussing only on "Infrastructure and Service" and that's the main issue with the article. I think we should focus our efforts towards the history section.
- I'm very happy to know that you "digged for hours trying to find stuff". I'm glad to see that you are trying hard. But the issue is not the fact that "it has had little to no change since its opening in 1977". The major issue is the requirement to delineate the events and their implications that resulted in its opening which is precisely an adequate History section. I guess the main point that you are trying to make is that you believe that there are no reliable sources that cover the history of this station. But that's an opinion. Anyone having access to such RS will have a contrasting opinion. To reinforce, the adequate history section is must for such articles.
- I believe I can offer you few insights on how to look for such RS and how to expand the History section. Take a closer look at the reference section of all the FAs I mentioned in the review and in particular for the FA Brill railway station. Notice the topic of these RS. They do not deal directly with the station in their title but to a much broader aspect. For instance, Brill railway station was a part of London Underground and hence the author looked for RS with topics "London's Disused Underground Stations", "London Commuter Lines" and so on while delineating the entire relevant history. The remarkable thing to notice is that the majority of FAs have a related history and this approach might help you if you wish to expand the article further in future. In nutshell, we will have to explore RS dealing with a much broader topic or some approach similar to that. Please understand that I'm not asking you to undertake any OR which is a strict no. All I'm asking you to read carefully and thoroughly these FAs and also the GA you mentioned in order to clearly understand the processes and efforts that resulted in giving the shape to those articles that they are currently in, only with respect to GA 3 criteria. It's up to you to gauge the time and effort it will take to bring the article to GA quality. As far as my assessment goes, I believe it won't be an easy task, but it also depends a lot on your motivation level. If you think you can address this issue in a reasonable time frame, I'm more than willing to be patient. But if you feel you can't resolve the issues, I'm afraid you'll have to allow me to fail it. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Seabuckthorn: And here's the interesting thing about Lakefront Station: it has had little to no change since its opening in 1977: the Pennsylvanian being the only truly notable change. Plus, Infrastructure and Service has a lot to do with the station. The design of the station interior does matter to an extent, considering the lack of renovation. Its services are also pretty important. I digged for hours trying to find stuff about the '80s and '90s and couldn't even find photos. That said, it covers the main, most notable topics: its construction and reasoning and its lack of renovation. Moving the infrastructure section made it flow better and less choppy. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm not sure you understood my review correctly or may be I failed in explaining it clearly to you. I never asked you to focus on the "infrastructure" as a way to fix the issues highlighted in the review. The issue is "The History section should be clearly delineated. It has currently only one relevant statement ... and the rest is description of infrastructure." I meant the history section should be expanded by exploring more reliable sources and not by rearranging content within the article. I mentioned few examples as to how the history section should be. I also think the proper place for infrastructure is within the Services section without creating a subsection of "infrastructure" but that's not the major issue. The main drawback is, I believe, the article does not cover major aspects because it lacks a proper history section which is standard in such articles. I have to say, I think I'll have to fail it if this major issue is not addressed. I hope I don't discourage you in this because it's a Wikicup participant. Let me know if you disagree with me. I'll seek second opinion and help from other more experienced reviewers in order to ensure that I'm giving a fair review here. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll figure it out. I could probably find sources for what you said above. That said, its 12:39 a.m. and I have classes tommorow, so it may be a day or two, but I'll work on it. In the mean time, place this nominee on hold. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I just found an awesome source that fits what you're looking for. That said, I'm tired and I'm on my phone so I'll do it tommorow. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- No worries and no rush. Take your time. I'm putting it on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Seabuckthorn: - OK, I think its ready. A few willing editors also helped out, by I added about how during the 50s, 60s, and 70s how Union Terminal became overcrowded and how they needed a new station. I think this what you needed and I have updated the lead as such as well. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks --Seabuckthorn ♥ 07:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Seabuckthorn: - OK, I think its ready. A few willing editors also helped out, by I added about how during the 50s, 60s, and 70s how Union Terminal became overcrowded and how they needed a new station. I think this what you needed and I have updated the lead as such as well. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- No worries and no rush. Take your time. I'm putting it on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 07:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)