Talk:Ayer station/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 05:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * • Please replace hyphens with em dashes for breaks in thoughts in sentences and en dashes for time ranges.

• Acronyms should be introduced parenthetically after first use and then used for the remainder of the article. For instance, add (W&N) after the wikilink for Worcester and Nashua Railroad and use W&N throughout the rest of the article.

• Please wikilink all cities and states. It is helpful to the reader to be able to click to those articles, and some readers may not know where these places are.

• Please wikilink all railroad terms on first use because some readers may not know what they mean.

• Of the five bolded phrases for old stations, only Willows is an actual redirect. I suggest mentioning Willows in the Lead and only bolding it there.

• A few references are cited in the Lead. Can you remove the citations from the Lead to the body? For instance, you mention and have a reference for the historic district in the Lead, but the historic district is not mentioned again. Can you talk about the historic district in the body?

• The Lead does not adequately summarize the article. In particular, there is no reference to information in the Consolidation under the B&M, Decline of service, and MBTA takeover sections. Can you reference the information in those sections by writing a sentence or two per section in the Lead?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * • The image of the map of old railroad lines does not have a reference in the Wikimedia Commons file, which gives me original research concerns.

• A few paragraphs do not have any references, but the information could conceivably be challenged. Even if the relevant reference is used in the next paragraph, please add it to that paragraph for completeness.

• Is ref 1 a reliable source and not an self-published source? Also, it is an enormous file! Please add page numbers to the reference.

• In ref 2, is (14 ed.) the 14th edition or the 2014 edition? Please edit to clarify.

• In ref 4, please add the author of the newspaper article.

• In ref 11, please used mixed case instead of ALL CAPS.

• In refs 14 to 18, you seem to use the publisher of the newspaper instead of the name of the newspaper.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There is only a brief mention of the station setup and current conditions in the Lead. To balance the article better, could you add a section about those topics? Perhaps add a station track diagram?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The middle three images in the body of the article are very close to each other. Can you balance them better throughout the article?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are a lot of red symbols, but none of the problems are insurmountable. I will give you a minimum of 7 days to address my comments.  V C  05:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are a lot of red symbols, but none of the problems are insurmountable. I will give you a minimum of 7 days to address my comments.  V C  05:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Thanks for the detailed review! I've addressed most of your technical concerns. Dashes replaced, acronyms properly used, locations and railroad terms wikilinked. Willows debolded and refs removed from the lede. Map replaced with one of better sourcing. Nashoba and all-caps sources fixed. I modified MBTA Bluebook 2014 to clarify that it is the 14th edition and coincidentally also published in 2014.

What was ref 4 (now 20) does not have an author in the by-line. For ref 1, I'm wary of adding page numbers. The document is updated frequently; page numbers tend to shift. As a compromise, I modified the citation to add the chapter, which remains fixed. The document is generally considered the most complete and reliable source of MBTA history; its main author is a state transportation analyst and an officer of the Boston Street Railway Association, and I've seen it used internally at the MBTA as a reference source. Tom Humphreys, who wrote most of the commuter rail section, is the lead author on a book that I'll soon be adding as a citation.

I've dragged up some additional history information which I'll be using to expand that section; most of your remaining concerns should be addressed when I complete that and rewrite the lede. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've completed an expansion of the history section and rewritten the lede. I believe I've addressed just about all of your concerns. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a few more things to fix:
 * Once those things are addressed, we should be done. I love the map you used to replace the one that suggested original research!  V C  17:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all but the first; bolding previous names of stations (with redirects) is the accepted practice for rail articles. I've created Ayer Junction station, Groton Junction station, and Groton station (Fitchburg Railroad) which redirect to this article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the new station layout section. I will compromise on the bolding of previous names of stations since it is a project standard and you created the redirects. However, the acronyms are still inconsistent. Can you go through all of the acronyms you use and fix those?  V C  22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed two more instances; if there are any remaining, can you point me to where? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I only found one more instance of Worcester & Nashua, but it is used in a caption, so that does not need to be fixed. I will pass the article!  V  C  14:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I only found one more instance of Worcester & Nashua, but it is used in a caption, so that does not need to be fixed. I will pass the article!  V  C  14:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)