Talk:New London Union Station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, let's get to it.

1. Images: All licences are good.
2. Dates: Make sure all dates follow the same format - including the citations. Since the subject is American, it should be an American date format. Currently the cites are in a British date format.
3. Lead: Delink United States per WP:OVERLINK
4. Early stations: Comma after "stopped in November 1855"
5. "The New London Northern continued to use its older station." - at this point you haven't said what the "New London Northern" is - only a piped link in the previous paragraph
6. Decline and revival: First paragraph is uncited.
7. Pipe a link through to Greyhound Lines
8. I think you should drop the Penn Central line image from the article, and move the 76/77 interior image from the following section to here. I don't think the Penn image adds anything useful, and then the interior image would be in a more relevent subsection.
9. Shore Line East: Give the full name of Dannel Malloy and link to his article
10. Upgrades and Coast Guard Museum: The two waiting room images would be better served using Template:Multiple image
11. Layout: End of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph is uncited.
12. Not sure that the images add anything in this section - it would really benefit from a diagram showing the layout as seen in other articles of this type.
13. Service: The section prior to the Intermodal connections subsection is entirely uncited
14. Intermodal connections: Only the first and last paragraphs are cited. Everything between isn't.
15. Cite #3: Needs to be fully filled out
16. Cite #7: I've got concerns about this because it isn't the newspaper directly per WP:SAYWHERE. Without seeing the original source, there will always be doubt as to whether it has been correctly copied. Therefore, you'll need to edit the citation and replace it with one which says the website where you got it from rather than the newspaper itself.
17. Cite #10+#21: "The Washington Post" (if in doubt, check what whether the Wikipedia article includes the "The" in the article title.
18. Cite #15/#18/#20: Should it be "The Day" or "The New London Day". Either way, it should be the same whereever you've used it.

• Ok, deal with those and ping me back and I'll give it another read through. Placing it on hold for the seven days. Miyagawa (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Replies

@Miyagawa: Here's where I'm at now. I still am adding text to the 1970s-current sections, and I may move or add images in other sections as I polish it off. Except for those, and two points which I've detailed below, I believe I've addressed everything that you mentioned:

1. Great to hear.
2.  Done
3.  Done
4.  Done
5.  Done
6.  Done
7.  Done
8.  Done I've massively expanded the 1970s section - and there's still a bit more to come. When all said and done, the section will have plenty of room for all three images.
9.  Done
10.  Done
11.  Done
12.  Not done The platform/track diagrams are highly overrated - they're confusing as often as they are useful. I think the images I've swapped into the section should explain things well. I also broke up the long paragraph for better readability.
13.  Done
14.  Done
15.  Done
16.  Not done I don't think this is a SAYWHERE case - an older version of the linked site, which I've added to the citation, made it clear that the text is an exact copy of the 1931 article. I believe that makes using the |via= parameter acceptable.
17.  Done
18.  Done

While I'm adding the remaining history, could you take a look at what I've done so far? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I'd move the line starting "(Scheetz later funded the display of the USS Croaker in Groton..." to a note rather than leave it bracketed at the end of the paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I do prefer the ironic twist being integrated with the regular text, and I'd prefer not to create a notes section for one item, but I see what you mean. The Scheetz rejection and the 1973 vote took place very close in time; perhaps I could just move up the first sentences of the next paragraph to better integrate it.

I might not quite finish my work on the article by the 7-day countdown from your first review. Will it be a problem if I don't finish up until Friday? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fine (on both counts). I don't think anyone minds if a hold period goes over as long as progress is taking place. It's when nothing has happened and the seven day deadline hits that there's the consideration of closing the nom as a fail. But I don't see that as an option here. Miyagawa (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: It took a few days longer than expected, but I've finished off the big expansion of the history section. I'm ready for any further comments you have. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Very solid writing. I'm happy to promote based on the changes made. Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)