Talk:West Concord station/GA1

GA nomination successful after adequate changes to article

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

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My opening comments should be up within a few days. Seems a bit short from a first glance, but I'll look at this more closely later on to determine whether anything appears to be missing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with infobox and lead section.

Infobox

With no evidence suggesting otherwise, I will assume good faith that File:Outbound train at West Concord station, May 2017.JPG is your own work
I'm guessing that 359 for average weekday boardings came from adding certain numbers from the link's PDF when unable to find an explicit mention of that total, but which ones?
- In the Fitchburg Line PDF, 339 inbound boardings + 20 outbound. I've added a hidden comment to clarify for future editors.

Lead

There are too many sentences in the second paragraph that start with "the"; it gets monotonous
- Partly done I've done the best I could to reduce that.
Having a super short paragraph right before a noticeably larger one makes the text look choppy. Either expand the first one, or rearrange some text to have the paragraphs more evened out.
- Partly done I've added a bit to the first paragraph. Right now it's divided into a paragraph on the general aspects of the station, and a paragraph about the history. Moving some of the history to the first paragraph would be worse, in my opinion, than unbalanced paragraphs.
It looks like "were renamed West Concord" is missing a "to" after "renamed"
- My understanding was that "[re]named to" should not be used in this context, but only in the context of [re]naming someone to a position. Is that not the case?
  - Not sure where you got that idea, but I doubt it's the case here SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, in any case, I've changed it to ...renamed as West Concord... Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perfectly fine with me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments will come in the future. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the review! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

Union Station

When checking the file source for File:Concord Junction station postcard.jpg, it unfortunately gives me an error. Try to find a replacement URL unless that can be fixed.
- Unfortunately, eBay urls tend to go dead relatively quickly. I'm working on a method to automatically archive them. It shouldn't affect the usability of the image, though - it's an undivided back postcard, which were only produced from 1907 to 1915, so it's unquestionably public domain.
This doesn't mention Damon Mill, 1844, anything about the building's design being unusual, or John F. Fitzgerald
- The referenced document is the inventory form (the INV button); it's a auto-download PDF without a direct link, so that's the best I can do.
  - That helps; just found these details in that form SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use the same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph, which for the second paragraph means ref#9 only needs to be used right after "a boardinghouse on Derby Street" and ref#4 only needs to be used right after its final sentence.
- Done

I'll get to the following subsection next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline

No issues with File:Former diamond at West Concord station, May 2017.JPG
More WP:REPCITE with ref#8 in the first paragraph; every instance used before "freight service through Concord Junction continued" should be removed
- Done
"This public funding stabilized remaining service on the Boston and Maine system in 1965; in 1976, the MBTA bought the Boston and Maine commuter assets, including West Concord station." is quite a mouthful! I'd split this into separate sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period.
- Done

My next batch of comments should be the last. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot for this section; let's spell out MBTA upon its first mention in the second paragraph. Remember that not all readers will necessarily be familiar with the acronym. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

Preservation

To keep the image alignment from being overly monotonous, perhaps you could align File:West Concord station facing southwest, May 2017.JPG to the right instead of the left like the previous two are. Either way, no concerns with its licensing.
- Done
"Following successful appeals, a group of residents renovated the interior of the station; in 1989, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places as Union Station." is rather long. Another instance where the semi-colon is best replaced with a period.
- Done
Having super short paragraphs like the second one in this section is discouraged as it makes the text flow look choppy. If you cannot reasonably expand on it or rearrange some text to even out the paragraph sizes, then I'd merge with the much larger first paragraph.
- Done

References

Don't italicize National Register of Historic Places or "MBTA Historical Property Survey, Phase II"
- That formatting is from the citation templates - I don't believe I can change it.
No accessdates for any URLs? I can understand not using them for offline books or printed copies of magazines/newspapers, but they're pretty standard to include for content that first comes from websites.
- 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 15, 16, and 17 are dated PDFs/books or have archivedate; 3 has accessdate, 5, 7, and 8 are offline; 10, 12, 13, and 14 are permalinked clippings from old newspapers. I've added a version permalink and page numbers for source 11.

Overall

Prose: Nearly there
Referencing: Formatting needs some adjustment
Coverage: This appears to address all major aspects without going into excess details
Neutrality: I can't find any bias
Stability: Nothing of concern
Media: All images have appropriate licensing
Verdict: On hold for seven days. That should be plenty of time to address the remaining comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I believe I've addressed all your remaining items. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did, and now I'm passing! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.