Talk:Rhinecliff station/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 05:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, and will have comments promptly. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: Friendly reminder about this GA review. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I was in a location without a good Internet connection for the last few days. I need to address the comments, but I'm pretty sure the last major thing for me to do is to review the references. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: - final comments are posted. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Suggest linking "wheelchair lift. Although, with all the links in the first paragraph, that might infringe on MOS:SEAOFBLUE. You decide.
  •  Done

• I haven't skimmed through this history section yet, but has the station not had any significant rebuilds/changes since 1914 worth mentioning in the infobox?
  • Not particularly. I'm not sure if the removal of the second platform in the 1960s counts, given that it didn't come with any substantial changes to what remains.

• Change "declined midcentury" to something like "declined during the middle of the 20th century".
  •  Done

• Did Amtrak take over service as soon as it was founded in 1971? If so, I suggest elaborating in that sentence.
  • Amtrak was created in 1970, but did not take over service until May 1, 1971. The current wording should be fine.

• Change "with Rhinecliff served by 13 daily round trips by 2000" to something like "and by 2000, Rhinecliff was served by 13 daily round trips".
  •  Done

Station design

• The structure is cruciform in shape with Mission and Spanish Revival architectural styles. Or alternatively, you could say something like "and is constructed in the Mission and Spanish Revival architectural styles."
  •  Done
• Suggest bundling citations 7 and 8, since they are both used together in both uses, and the first use contains a total of four footnotes.
  •  Done

History

Early stations

• This certainly isn't a necessity, but is there any information about the background and planning of the station?
  • Not that I've found. I'm just thrilled to have as much information as I do - usually I'm lucky to dig up enough for a single paragraph about pre-1870 history.
• If I understand correctly, the station opened on the same day as the railroad. Might consider clarifying.
  •  Done
• This also isn't a necessity, but when did construction begin on the station?
  • I haven't found anything discussing that. Small-town train stations of that era were often tiny shacks (or repurposed from other uses)
    • Ok, that's fine. I guess that means they didn't take long to construct and likely didn't break ground until the railroads were well under way. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Out of curiosity, is the date that the eastern terminal of the ferry was changed actually unknown?
  • Apparently so: Although it was announced that both Shatzell's Dock and Roundout had become terminuses of [the ferry] on November 11, there may be some slight questions about the former. The trains did not begin to stop at Shatzell's Dock until December 1.

Rhinebeck and Connecticut

• Was the station originally known as Slate Dock?
  • Not that I've seen.
• Period between "Rhinecliff" and citation 15.
  •  Done
• Suggest bundling citations 16 and 17, and citations 20, 21, and 22, respectively.
  •  Done
• It became part of the Philadelphia, Reading and New England Railroad in 1892 - since the preceding sentence refers to both the eastern and western lines of the R&C, I suggest specifying what "it" refers to.
  •  Done

1914 station

• Suggest changing designed by firm of Warren and Wetmore to "designed by architectural firm Warren and Wetmore".
  • Added the missing "the" to the sentence.
• Did the wealthy residents donate money for a larger station or just encourage a larger station?
  • It's not quite clear - the sources are vague on the matter.
• Is a more precise opening date for the station available?
  • Frustratingly, no. I spent quite a while looking.
    • Even if you can't find the exact date, if you were to find the month or time of year, that would be worth including. I wonder if maybe a financial report of the company would have it. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not in the 1914 annual report, unfortunately. None of the sources give anything more precise than 1914. Source #27 is from June 1914 and estimates completion by September, but construction projects back then got delayed just like they do now, so that isn't enough to narrow down the opening date. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Does "well-used" need to be hyphenated?
  • The relevant guideline seems to be the 6th bullet under #3 at MOS:HYPHEN. I think it indicates that the hyphen does belong in "well-used".
• Suggest bundling citations 42, 43, and 44.
  •  Done
• Per preceding sentence, suggest changing "September 1968" to "September of that year".
  •  Done

Amtrak era

• Suggest bundling citations 49 and 50.
  •  Done
• Period after "Empire Corridor".
  •  Done
• Suggest bundling citations 57 through 60, 62 through 64, and 65 through 68, respectively.
  •  Done
• Link "COVID-19 pandemic" to "COVID-19 pandemic in New York (state)".
  •  Done
• I'm guessing "$28.2" is supposed to be "$28.2 million".
  •  Done
• "four to six year" → "four-to-six-year".
  •  Done
• Has NYSDOT finished the design for the platform renovations yet?
  • Not that has made the presses, unfortunately.

References

• This isn't a requirement, but I strongly recommend access dates for all URLs.
  • I use access dates where relevant - i.e, where the content may change, such as websites that are regularly updated. For scans of print sources, dated PDFs, and archived web sources, the date of access isn't relevant, because the content should not change.
• Add |via=Google Books to citations 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, and 31.
  •  Done
• Add |via=National Archives and Records Administration to citation 6.
  •  Done
• Add |via=David Rumsey Historical Map Collection to citation 11.
  •  Done
• Add |via=HathiTrust to second and third sources in citation 18.
  •  Done
• Add |via=New York Public Library to citation 20.
  •  Done
• Suggest adding website name to citations 24, 32, 33, 36-38, 39 (last source), and 41.
  • None of these are material that originates on the hosting websites; they're just hosting scanned copies of material published elsewhere. I use the via parameter (as per the last few items) when it indicates an organized database/collection/etc, but that doesn't apply to these.
• Add |via=Newspapers.com to citation 34.
  •  Done
• Add |url-status=live to all citations with archived URLs that are still live.
  • Is this something that is manually done? I was under the impression it was done by bots.
    • I'm pretty sure that if you use a tool to add archive URLs to live sources that it is done automatically. I don't know of any bots that regularly archive live URLs. That being said, I don't think this is a huge issue here. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2024 (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.