Talk:Cleveland Lakefront Station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator:  Sports guy17  ( T •  C )

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for taking the time to review. There are a few things I will still add during the review, including former services, which perhaps would cover the 80s and 90s in the History section or I could create a Former Services section. Otherwise, I'll just do what you find is necessary and of course a final round of copy editing.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 15:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. How about this? After you finish all the additions then I'll start my review. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave a note on this page when you are done. But really, I'm willing to take any course you are comfortable with.  --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  16:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm ready for the review. See Sturtevant (Amtrak station) as an example, plus or minus certain things that apply to each station.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 17:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body.
 * 5) * "Toledo in 1975" and the location does not appear in the body. The lead needs to be rewritten as the article will cover more material once GA 3 is addressed.
 * 6) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 7) ** ( not assessed as the article will cover more material once GA 3 is addressed. )
 * 8) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 9) ** ( not assessed as the article will cover more material once GA 3 is addressed. )
 * 10) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 11) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 12) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 13) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 14) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 15) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 16) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 17) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 18) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 19) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 20) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 21) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 22) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 23) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 24) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 25) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 26) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: good (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅

Cross-checked with the other FAs: Aldwych tube station, Brill railway station, Brill Tramway, Quainton Road railway station, Westcott railway station, Wood Siding railway station, Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station, Waddesdon Road railway station & Herne Hill railway station. Also referred one GA Sturtevant (Amtrak station).


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) * The History section should be clearly delineated. It has currently only one relevant statement "Lakefront Station was built in 1976, replacing Tower City Center to provide service for the Lake Shore Limited, which resumed service via Toledo.[2]" and the rest is description of infrastructure.
 * 10) * Refer Brill railway station. The history section clearly delineates the timeline and the implications of the events leading to the railway station – "On 23 September 1868, … opened, linking … station … to … line … On 1 September 1894, … reached Aylesbury, and shortly afterwards connected to the … line … Mr X decided to build a light railway to … The first stage of the route, known as the Wotton Tramway, was a … and opened on 1 April 1871. (reason) … led to an extension from Wotton to a new terminus … in March 1872 … With the extension to … the line was renamed … In 1894, … Company … extending the line from … to …, but the extension … was never built … The MR leased the … Tramway from 1 December 1899 … although the line continued to be owned by the … ."
 * 11) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):
 * 12) * The Construction subsection should be more focused on the topic. It should be noted that this subsection lies within the History section, so it should be delineated in the historical context.
 * 13) * Refer Herne Hill railway station. Take a look at the Construction subsection – "In the late 1850s, the East Kent Railway … did not own any railway lines … reached an agreement … in 1858 to use … line to access … . This arrangement incurred costly access fees, but it was necessary until … authority to build … In August 1860, the … Act granted … the powers to build … lines: from … to …; and from … to … station and the first section … opened on 25 August 1862 … The station was designed by architect … The building was intended to impress … The Building News described the station in 1863 as "… the very best … an unusual amount … one of the most ornamental …" There were … platforms … signal box … The land for the station … A new road was built … On 6 October 1863, … opened … The line … reached … By June 1864, … extended to … Bridge was then built …. . tunnel opened on 1 January 1866, … In 1868, the … opened … opened on 1 January 1869." In nutshell, the purpose of a construction section is to describe and develop clearly the events that led to the railway station as it is now. It should also highlight the notable aspects of the infrastructure, if any, like the very best, an unusual amount, one of the most ornamental, etc.

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) & (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

I'll level with you: the article will need a lot of work before it attains GA status. But if anyone's up to the task, I figure it's you, Sportsguy17. I can't promise to be an easy reviewer for this article, but I can promise to be fair, patient, and consistent. I think the largest issue, GA 3, will take the most work, and I’ll go back through for details once these are addressed. If you disagree with any of my recommendations, let me know and we'll discuss it. I'm not inflexible; like you, my main concern is making this article the best it can be. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  20:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have fixed #3 to the extent I could. I made an Infrastructure section so that it would follow a historical timeline like you suggested. Lakefront Station has had so few changes to it that there is not much about it from the '80s and '90s. Regarding the lead, there's not much left to add, maybe copy edit and mention it, but otherwise I think its good.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 21:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm not sure you understood my review correctly or may be I failed in explaining it clearly to you. I never asked you to focus on the "infrastructure" as a way to fix the issues highlighted in the review. The issue is "The History section should be clearly delineated. It has currently only one relevant statement ... and the rest is description of infrastructure." I meant the history section should be expanded by exploring more reliable sources and not by rearranging content within the article. I mentioned few examples as to how the history section should be. I also think the proper place for infrastructure is within the Services section without creating a subsection of "infrastructure" but that's not the major issue. The main drawback is, I believe, the article does not cover major aspects because it lacks a proper history section which is standard in such articles. I have to say, I think I'll have to fail it if this major issue is not addressed.  I hope I don't discourage you in this because it's a Wikicup participant.  Let me know if you disagree with me. I'll seek second opinion and help from other more experienced reviewers in order to ensure that I'm giving a fair review here.  --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And here's the interesting thing about Lakefront Station: it has had little to no change since its opening in 1977: the Pennsylvanian being the only truly notable change. Plus, Infrastructure and Service has a lot to do with the station. The design of the station interior does matter to an extent, considering the lack of renovation. Its services are also pretty important. I digged for hours trying to find stuff about the '80s and '90s and couldn't even find photos. That said, it covers the main, most notable topics: its construction and reasoning and its lack of renovation. Moving the infrastructure section made it flow better and less choppy.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 03:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're doing great work, and I hope you don't misunderstand me. I'm just trying to help you by putting my assessment as clearly and as candidly as possible. I agree with your point that "Infrastructure and Service has a lot to do with the station" but I believe they are adequately represented in the article at the moment. If you notice your above response you are focusing and discussing only on "Infrastructure and Service" and that's the main issue with the article. I think we should focus our efforts towards the history section.
 * I'm very happy to know that you "digged for hours trying to find stuff". I'm glad to see that you are trying hard. But the issue is not the fact that "it has had little to no change since its opening in 1977". The major issue is the requirement to delineate the events and their implications that resulted in its opening which is precisely an adequate History section. I guess the main point that you are trying to make is that you believe that there are no reliable sources that cover the history of this station. But that's an opinion. Anyone having access to such RS will have a contrasting opinion. To reinforce, the adequate history section is must for such articles.
 * I believe I can offer you few insights on how to look for such RS and how to expand the History section. Take a closer look at the reference section of all the FAs I mentioned in the review and in particular for the FA Brill railway station. Notice the topic of these RS.  They do not deal directly with the station in their title but to a much broader aspect. For instance, Brill railway station was a part of London Underground and hence the author looked for RS with topics "London's Disused Underground Stations", "London Commuter Lines" and so on while delineating the entire relevant history. The remarkable thing to notice is that the majority of FAs have a related history and this approach might help you if you wish to expand the article further in future. In nutshell, we will have to explore RS dealing with a much broader topic or some approach similar to that. Please understand that I'm not asking you to undertake any OR which is a strict no. All I'm asking you to read carefully and thoroughly these FAs and also the GA you mentioned in order to clearly understand the processes and efforts that resulted in giving the shape to those articles that they are currently in, only with respect to GA 3 criteria. It's up to you to gauge the time and effort it will take to bring the article to GA quality. As far as my assessment goes, I believe it won't be an easy task, but it also depends a lot on your motivation level. If you think you can address this issue in a reasonable time frame, I'm more than willing to be patient. But if you feel you can't resolve the issues, I'm afraid you'll have to allow me to fail it.  All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  05:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll figure it out. I could probably find sources for what you said above. That said, its 12:39 a.m. and I have classes tommorow, so it may be a day or two, but I'll work on it. In the mean time, place this nominee on hold.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 05:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just found an awesome source that fits what you're looking for. That said, I'm tired and I'm on my phone so I'll do it tommorow.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 05:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries and no rush. Take your time. I'm putting it on hold. All the best! --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  06:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - OK, I think its ready. A few willing editors also helped out, by I added about how during the 50s, 60s, and 70s how Union Terminal became overcrowded and how they needed a new station. I think this what you needed and I have updated the lead as such as well. Thanks.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 03:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  07:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  07:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)