Talk:South Attleboro station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 October 2020 (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

The first para of 'Bus connections' is unsourced
In infobox parking is 568, in body its 579.
- Both done. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parking fee not required. Too much detail.

❯❯❯   S A H A 10:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- That's pretty commons for station articles. While I don't love it, parking fees are unfortunately one of the most common things that readers come here looking for. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pi.1415926535 true, but as we are going for GA, it needs to be omitted. ❯❯❯ S A H A 07:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. Given that it hasn't been an issue in half a dozen previous GAs of other MBTA Commuter Rail arguments, I don't see why it's an impediment to GA, nor why it is disallowed. Do you have any other comments , or is this the only remaining sticking point? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will go for a 2nd opinion then. ❯❯❯ S A H A 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Pi.1415926535: ArnabSaha asked me to provide a second opinion (and I know I'm a little late). Normally I would suggest (but not require) excluding parking fees, since it's a gray area in WP:NOTGUIDE. However, because it's a relatively minor point and such fees are mentioned in similar good articles as well, I'd leave it alone for the sake of consistency. epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        ~~Pi.1415926535 Good to go. As per the 2nd opinion provided by epicgenius. ❯❯❯ S A H A 14:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Putting on hold due to some issues. Couldn't find the parking space numbers and fees details in the citation. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added a citation with both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]