Talk:JFK/UMass station

Untitled

The article mentions a renovation, but doesn't say when it happens. Isn't there also a neat thingy that tells you which track the next inbound train is coming on? -- Beland 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Both are now in the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement about only station

A statement is made "It is the only MBTA rapid transit station where trains from different branches of a line arrive on separate platforms; this is because the Ashmont and Braintree branches merge immediately inbound from the station. " What about N. Station, (Green line level at) Park Street, Kenmore? The green line maybe considered "light rail" however, is it not treated as Heavy Rail/Rapid Transit while at the fore-mentioned stations? (Or in the case of N. Station Orange/Green) where they are side by side. (comment from User:CaribDigita)

At Kenmore all branches use the same platforms; instead, they're split inbound/outbound. Same for Park Street. The Orange and Green Lines are separated, so the comment doesn't apply to North Station. The wording (legacy text from before my time) is thus technically correct, if badly phrased. You're welcome to make it clearer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the confusing platforms explanation, and hope I didn't make it worse. It's the best I could do in between several other things I was working on. I also noticed an inconsistency between the "South Shore Line" and "Braintree Branch", which are more or less the same thing, but not quite. I started to clean it up, then realized that we should probably use the official MBTA terminology. I would guess that the South Shore name is more stable, since the terminus of the line changes over time (Quincy Center, then Braintree, then whatever is next). There's nothing wrong with using an informal or shortcut name, but we should be clear about naming to start with, and reasonably consistent thereafter. Any suggestions? --Reify-tech (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Track diagram

I have access to a couple different track maps of the JFK/UMass area, including a 1986 geographic map (still accurate) and the 2009 Bluebook. I'm tentatively planning to make my free-use map roughly geographic but with the N-S scale compressed (to make the map something other than awkwardly tall). Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea, including the vertical compression. Reify-tech (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. I've got some ongoing business - I found the original source for high-res images of South Station, and a trove of SEPTA images to transfer to Commons - but I should be able to rig something up soon. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bus route titles

For better or for worse, I believe we should use the MBTA's actual descriptions of their bus routes. (I swear I'm not just picking a fight over a random comma, and it general I use the Oxford comma). I have conceded extending abbrevations for the sake of clarity, but the more the route descriptions are altered, the more we risk being off in the realm of original research. I don't think there's an reason to include - much less emphasize - the Oxford comma in the 41 route description; we should attempt to present information as its official sources give it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Without any comma, the official MBTA route description is ambiguous and confusing. I tried using square brackets to indicate minor editing for clarity, but it was immediately removed before many other editors could see it. It admittedly looks a bit ugly, but might be an acceptable compromise between slavish quotation and undisclosed editorial change:

• 41 Centre & Eliot Street - JFK/UMass Station via Dudley Station, Centre Street[,] & Jackson Square Station

Reify-tech (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the ugliest compromise I've ever seen. Why don't you just leave it alone. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ugly, but an edit war would be even uglier. Anybody got a better idea? Reify-tech (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As WP editors, we are suppose to base our edits on sources, not on our personal judgement of what's ugly. Leave the comma out, when the MBTA leaves the comma out. — Lentower (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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 Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I shall review. If my opening comments aren't up within a week, then please ping me here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The infobox and lead shall come first.....

Infobox

• I will assume good faith that File:Outbound Braintree Branch train at JFK UMass station, July 2013.JPG is taken from the uploader, though am not sure why its summary reads "Taken on 5 July 2015" when 2013 is used elsewhere.
  •  Done That was my error during upload - I was also uploading photos I took of the station in 2015.
• Braintree branch line links to something not affiliated with the MBTA. For consistency with how you use the collective Old Colony Lines to list the three commuter rail lines this station is part of, it could help to use Red Line (MBTA) in place of the "Braintree" bit along with "Ashmont Branch" when that covers both of the line's paths.
  •  Partly done The Red Line is a service; the Ashmont and Braintree branches are physical lines. Same with the three named commuter rail services, versus the Old Colony Mainline . I did fix the links to be more clear.
• Where does 362 come from for commuter rail boardings? I can't seem to find that here or in its given files.
  •  Partly done That's because the MBTA chose a particularly asinine format for the data. The 362 is the sum of the listed inbound and outbound boardings for the three lines. I added a hidden comment to clarify.
• Are 2014 stats the most recent available for subway ridership? If anything more up-to-date can be found, then I'd use that.
  •  Not done Unfortunately, they are. Hopefully more recent data will be released this year.

Lead

• To give readers a clearer connection between this and the "Columbia" name, I would mention that the renaming took place in 1982. They might not look at the infobox or article body right away after reading the lead.
  •  Done
• "The station became more important" is a personal opinion
  •  Done I've also added a citation to clarify that point in the text.
• "1987-88 renovation" → "1987–1988 renovation"
  •  Done
• That last sentence is quite a mouthful! I'd split it by turning the semi-colon after "resumed in 1997" into a period.
  •  Done
• It feels somewhat repetitive to see many sentences start with "the"
  •  Done

More to follow later on. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the review! I've added my comments above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

History

Old Colony Railroad and BERy

• There's an instance of "BER" which seems to be missing its lowercase "y", found within "sold the Shawmut Branch to the BER".
  •  Done
• Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use a citation more than once consecutively within a paragraph. In other words, I'd remove the "Report of the Transit Department for the Year ending December 31, 1926" ref after the "flashed with copper" bit because it and everything up to "designed by William D. Austin" are attributed to the same source.
  •  Done
• Not sure "like other stations on the Dorchester Extension" is really relevant
  •  Not done I think that's reasonable to note. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll next do the "MBTA era" subsection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

MBTA era

• You should spell out the MBTA abbreviation upon first mention in article body. I do realize it's been done so in the lead, but that is supposed to summarize content already written out and supported by citations in the body.
  •  Done
• Almost every sentence in the second paragraph starts with "the", which gets redundant
  •  Done
• It also feels monotonous to have both File:JFK UMass station Columbia Road headhouse, April 2016.JPG and File:JFK UMass station viewed from commuter rail platform, April 2016.JPG aligned towards the left. For diversity sake, I'd align one of them towards the right. On another note, I see no good reason to suspect improper licensing with either.
  •  Done
• "increased the importance of the station" is an opinion
  •  Not done That's firmly supported by the citation.
    • I've added a second source to this claim.
• "a $1 million renovation of the station"..... if opting to round up from the actual $998,600, then I'd use something like "almost" or "nearly" to indicate that this wasn't the exact number (which is what the current text suggests).
  •  Not done That's within the realm of reasonable rounding. Four sig figs is likely false precision for a project of that size, especially for a pre-construction estimate.
• See previous comments on WP:REPCITE for the fifth paragraph (unnecessary consecutive uses of the "Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district" ref)
  •  Partly done No longer the case, as I added another sentence with a different source.
• We have a non-working link (which you titled "The Urban Ring Phase 2: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement")
  •  Done
• Replace the hyphens surrounding "in addition to around a dozen already present" with longer dashes (—)
  •  Done
• No exact amount of cameras before the 50 additional installations was given, only "more than 10"
  •  Done
• "several months" is exaggerating when "several" means at least five and the 2019 reduced Red Line service actually lasted for three months following its June derailment
  •  Not done Merriam-Webster says "at least two" which is how I've always heard it used. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Outside of this article, uses I've come across do tend to imply above three. Given that it's an ambiguous term to begin with, I recommend giving the more clear-cut three when this is known for certain, which is more to the point. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Okay, fair. I'll change that with the next round of revisions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
        •  Done

Hopefully "Station layout" can be done in one go when I assess that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Station layout

• If File:Aerial view of JFK UMass station, July 2019.JPG is a screenshot of a map, then I'm not sure it's appropriate to claim as own work
  • Not to worry - it is a photo I took from an airplane on approach to Logan.
    • In that case, this is fine to include :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• "A two-lane busway, drop-off lane, and plaza are located east of the tracks." needs to be cited
  •  Done
• More WP:REPCITE with the last paragraph (only one use of "Improving the Southwest Expressway: A Conceptual Plan" is needed at the end of the paragraph)
  •  Done

Bus connections

• File:MBTA route 41 bus at JFK UMass station, August 2018.JPG is A-OK to use
• I don't see any mention of 1988 here
  •  Done Added a cite with the date
• Perhaps prose would be better to use for the routes instead of a list consisting of only three entries.
  •  Not done Per some previous discussions, MBTA bus route names use the formatting from the MBTA website (example). Because of that, it's easier to have in a list than in prose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• The hyphens around "and later, bus" as well as "both planned track work and unplanned incidents" should be replaced with longer dashes (—)
  •  Done

Almost done! I'll get the references section in my next batch. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• "Boston Daily Globe", "Boston Globe", and "Boston Globe City Weekly" should all read The Boston Globe
  • The first is the name the paper used at the time; the latter is a supplementary publication under that name. Is there a formal rule about whether dropping the article is acceptable?
    • Not sure about formal rules or whether you mean using page titles by "dropping the article", but my comment was based on how when I accessed the clippings for those, they were labeled as pieces from The Boston Globe. At the very least, include "the" for "Boston Globe" when that is part of the paper's title. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
      •  Done My understanding was that "the" in the newspaper's name could be dropped, but it appears that may not be the case. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• Access dates should be included for links, especially those that didn't come from print sources
  •  Partly done Dated press releases, maps, and PDF reports don't need them because of the nature of the source; for archived sources, the archive date serves that purpose. I've added it for all others.

Overall

• Prose: Some hyphens still should be altered
• Referencing: Citation format needs adjusting
• Coverage: Seems good
• Neutrality: Are you sure "importance" is a good term to use for describing this station? It seems to reflect someone's personal views. Maybe "prominence" would be better or perhaps something on its use by commuters/their demands.
• Stability: Nothing of concern
• Media: Every image has appropriate licensing
• Verdict: Placing the nomination on hold. Starting now, you have seven days to address the remaining concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed just about everything. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Just did a bit of minor adjusting, and now the article looks ready to promote. Congratulations! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

"JFK station" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect JFK station. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 28#JFK station until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (+) 02:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)