Jump to content

Talk:Wickford Junction station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prior service

[edit]

The proposed station seems to be more or less on the site where the Beacon Hill stopped 1980-81 (see [1] for location). Anyone have anything further about this? Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's note: I added information about the former station to the article a few months back. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wickford Junction (MBTA station). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wickford Junction station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Pi.1415926535: I will review this article. epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Prose

[edit]

Images

  • All appropriately licensed.

Infobox

  • Why is April 23, 2012 bolded?
  • The sources in the "Opening" section only support the 2012 opening date, not the 1844 opening. But as per WP:INFOBOXCITE, you should be fine if you removed it from the infobox, since this info is also in the prose.
  • On that note, the dates in the "History" section could use {{Start date and age}}. Not a hard and fast requirement, just a suggestion.
  • Do you have any more recent ridership data? Or annual data?
Debolded, and citations fixed. I strongly disagree with the use of {{Start date and age}} in rail articles; it is for situations where the time elapsed since an event is relevant, not merely for how old a station is. No recent ridership data, unfortunately; the MBTA hasn't put out a full accounting since 2014. I'll get to the lede within a day or two. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The lead is pretty short. I suggest at least two paragraphs: a description of the station, and a brief history.
  • Wickford Junction station is a commuter rail station - is redundant. You can just remove the first use of "station". If you want to include "station" in the bolded part of the first sentence, it should go something like this: "Wickford Junction station serves commuter rail trains in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, United States on the Northeast Corridor, extending the Providence/Stoughton Line of the MBTA Commuter Rail south from Providence."
  • on the Northeast Corridor, extending the Providence/Stoughton Line of the MBTA Commuter Rail south from Providence - So what I'm gathering is that this is an MBTA station south of Providence, R.I. Are the Providence/Stoughton Line and NEC two parallel lines at this point, or do Amtrak trains bypass on the track that has a platform at this station? This should be clarified, because even I'm a little confused.
  • The new station, which opened on April 23, 2012, has a large park and ride garage and was part of a $336 million project that also included the new T. F. Green Airport station. A former station on the site served mainline trains from 1844 to 1981, as well as the Wickford Branch from 1870 to 1925. - Should this be in chronological order (i.e. the sentences would be reversed, with some modifications)? This article talks quite a bit about the old station as well.
@Epicgenius: I've rewritten the lede and hopefully addressed these concerns. As much as I agree with you about the redundant station in the first sentence, apparently the result of the RFC a while back was to include "station" in the bolded part. I believe this completes my edits in response to your comments thus far. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this RFC, where I was the minority on the "don't include 'station' in the bold" camp. Fair enough, maybe that isn't the biggest issue to be worrying about. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History - Former station

  • wealthy riders would board steamships to Newport - First, there should be a link to Newport, Rhode Island on the first mention. Second, why only wealthy riders? Was it a destination for the elite, or were the ticket prices that high?
  • with a $3,500 addition sixteen years later - I think this should be reworded because it sounds awkward. How about "and a $3,500 annex was added sixteen years later". Also, what was the purpose of this addition?
  • Passenger service ended on the branch - "on the branch" should go before "ended" , like this: "Passenger service on the branch ended in 1925". This would be more straightforward grammar.
  • Any particular reason why the station building was demolished in 1969?
  • The pedestrian overpass was moved in 1971 to Route 128 station, where it remained until the station was rebuilt in 2000 - The last part is confusing. So was Route 128 rebuilt in 2000, or was Wickford Junction? Side note: you could link directly to Route 128 station if you wanted, instead of having a piped link to Route 128 (MBTA station).
  • After the Beacon Hill was discontinued, the station closed. - A direct citation is needed.
  • The original station's foundation still abuts the east side of the tracks 200 feet south of the Ten Rod Road overpass, but it is buried under a gravel access road. - A citation is needed. An image would be sufficient as citation, though, as long as coordinates are provided. I am requesting coords because an exact distance is given here.
I believe I've addressed almost all of these while rewriting the section. I can't find a specific reliable source that says that the station closed with the Beacon Hill, but I'll keep looking. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modern station

  • An addendum in 1995 projected daily ridership from Wickford to be 2,869 in 2000 and 3,386 in 2020 - Was this addendum assuming that the station was being built that quickly? Or is this ridership from the town itself, to other stations? Also, I think a more clear wording would be "...projected that daily ridership...", because "projected" could be used as an adjective as well as a verb (as it's used here).
  • Partial funding for the new station was contained in the 2005 Transportation Bill. - Is there an exact dollar value, or percentage? Were there any cost projections for the new station?
  • "on time and under budget" - I'm not sure why the text is quoted. Was it being contrasted to something else that was delayed? And even if you keep the quotes, you should indicate who said it. Alternatively, since this is quite a common phrase, you could also remove the quote marks and just attribute this sentence to whoever said it.
  • - rare in the MBTA system - - Correctly formatted, these should either be em-dashes, or spaced en-dashes.
I rewrote the funding section to reflect what I could find citations for. I believe I've addressed your other concerns. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership

  • projected to reach 3,386 in 2020 by the 1995 analysis - "By" can mean two things. It can mean (1) the 1995 analysis showed this projection, where "by" grammatically means authorship, or (2) this was the projection as of the 1995 analysis, where "by" grammatically means "as of". I think this word should be clarified, because this sentence is in a passive tense, which is awkward.
  • Ridership increased to 150 riders per day by early June and to 175 daily by February 2014, with growth falling short of expectations - What was the expectation?
Concerns addressed in the text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus operations

  • 66 URI / Galilee; the 66 and the new 65X Wakefield - the formatting of the bus routes is inconsistent. Either they should be bolded throughout, or not bolded throughout. Bolding on first mention isn't usually done unless it refers to the subject of the article, or a related topic or alternative name.
  • A judge blocked RIDOT's sale plan in July 2017 over concerns about the rights of the family of the original property owners (from whom it was taken by eminent domain in the 1930s) to buy back the property - This grammar is weird, and I think you should reword it. I'm understanding that the judge blocked the sale because the original property owners, who had it taken by eminent domain, may have had the right to buy back the property, and that the judge was concerned about that. Is that correct?
  • - estimated at $340,000 annually - - Again, dashes.
  • Only "preliminary work" was completed by August 31 - How far was this into the two-week project?
  • all hours every day - So 24/7, then.
Concerns addressed in the text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rail operations

  • - including five rush hour trains - - Dashes.
  • The station is located on an 0.7-mile (1.1 km) siding - Are there switches to/from the northbound track, or do northbound trains run in reverse?
  • enter and exit the Northeast Corridor at speed - What's "at speed"? The same speed as the NEC?
  • - 16 miles from Providence and 63 miles from Boston - Dashes. And a {{convert}} template would be nice.
  • to as high as - Normally, this would be "to as much as".
Concerns addressed in the text. I believe all MBTA trains run on the southbound track, but I don't have a cite for that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the references later. epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pi.1415926535: I just saw another issue. In "Ridership" it's mentioned that The station currently only has weekday service. You should replace "currently" with {{as of}}, which seems to be June 2012 according to the reference. This avoids the problem you get if someone tags this with {{when}}. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • The following PDFs need page numbers:
    • Ref 2 "The Wickford Junction Train Station"
    • Ref 6 "Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2017"
    • Ref 9 "Rhode Island State Rail Plan 2014"
    • Ref 10 "Never give up on your dream!: Bob Cioe's dream, recently opened Wickford Junction, dates back to 1959"
    • Ref 11 "Rail Corridor Feasibility Study"
    • Ref 12 "South County Commuter Rail Service Plan"
    • Ref 13 "South County Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment"
    • Ref 17 "Wickford Junction Commuter Rail"
  • Does Ref 4 "Boston's Commuter Rail: Second Section" have an ISBN?
  • Page numbers for Ref 29 "Wickford Junction Transit Center Efficiency Initiative" would be convenient, but not necessary.

Will look at content later. epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN added. Page numbers have been added except for "Changes..." which is modified frequently and thus hard to pin down page numbers (I'm working on a template to provide permalinks for page numbers, but for now it's best left unnumbered) and "...Efficiency..." which is only one page. Ran everything through Checklinks and fixed the one issue. I also rewrote a couple lines about ridership projections to correct them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The references look like they all support the text they are citing. There's just one more issue that I raised in the "Prose" section. epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Looks like everything's been fixed and there's no major issues, so I am passing this article. epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership

[edit]

The current text suggests more fluctuation then I think is correct. The 414 number seems to come from this sentence in the cited 2017 Boston Globe reference: "Transportation officials say the average daily ridership at Wickford Junction is less than 300. It’s 414 at T.F. Green, where service began in 2010." That seems to be total ridership, not boardings. Also the two early studies with very different ridership, 2001 and 2003, cite the same 1995 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. projections. The original study was for service to Westerly, so that may be an issue. The Wickford Junction article has a reference to the results of the free ride study, which would be relevant here.--agr (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to post this on Talk:T. F. Green Airport station? I've copyedited that article to clarify. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wickford_Junction_station&oldid=1209330705"