Talk:Cumberland station (CTA)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Reviewer: Jeremy (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I don't think that the quality of the prose meets the GA criteria. The lead is OK, though I think that it could be a bit shorter for an article of this length. In the 'History' section, the prose in the 1st paragraph could flow better; it is a little choppy. For example the two sentences: The federal government approved the project and agreed to provide 80 percent of the funding for its construction in 1978. Construction on the 7.6-mile (12.2 km) extension began in March 1980. might flow better as one: The federal government approved the project and agreed to provide 80 percent of the funding for its construction in 1978, and construction on the 7.6-mile (12.2 km) extension began in March 1980. The second paragraph of the history is really a list of unrelated items e.g. Park & Ride expanded; Man Killed; Signage trial. Perhaps the signage trial would be better mentioned in the 'Facilities' section, and I think the man killed, though tragic, could probably be removed altogether without affecting the quality of the article. The 2nd paragraph of the 'Facilities' section is more about the locale of the station rather than the facilities; perhaps this would be better covered in the 'Services' section. The services section (actually the whole article, but it is particularly apparent here) over-uses the article title: the first paragraph has five sentences and uses the word Cumberland six times. I think that the prose could be edited to avoid this repetition. Also, like the 2nd paragraph of the history section, I found this section to be fairly choppy—I think that the prose could be edited to flow better.
 * I've made most of the changes you suggested to improve the prose and the flow of the article. The second paragraph of the history section is now focused on the effects of the new station after its opening; I moved the park and ride and signage info to facilities and took out the death, as it is somewhat newsy. I also made some changes to the lead, and I rewrote the section on the bus routes, as I realized that listing the exact routes of six bus routes was probably trivial. The one thing I didn't change yet was the 2nd paragraph of the Facilites section, as I'm trying to decide on the best place to put the location info. For this article and my other CTA-related GA nom (Pulaski (CTA Orange Line), I tried to put that info where it seemed to be in the other train station GAs, which are remarkably inconsistent as to this (and as to formatting in general, for that matter). I initially used the format in Storo (station), which lists location info under facilities. Other formats I've seen make location info its own paragraph (Jordanhill railway station), combine all service, facilities, and location info (Sturtevant (Amtrak station), or don't even include location info (Embankment tube station). I'm thinking of making location a new section, though I'm not sure where exactly in the article it should go; otherwise, it should probably stay where it is. Any thoughts? TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the order followed in the lead is a good one to choose. It starts by talking about where the station is located before going into the history of the station. So perhaps a section called 'Location' or something similar before the 'History' section would work. —Jeremy (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a logical order to me too, so I made location info its own section. The unintended consequence of this was that the two images at the bottom no longer fit, so I had to take out the parking sign. I don't think this is a huge loss; I also transferred it and the other image I removed to Commons and made a category for all the Cumberland images, so they're still accessible from the article. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I'm not sure that the references given in the 2nd paragraph of the history section are enough to support the conclusion that the opening of the stations produced a rise in CTA ridership: the studies were completed within a very short time-span of the opening of the stations, so surely the results could be accounted for by a short-term spike in public interest following the opening. I'd be interested to know how the 1983 annual blue line ridership compared with the 1982 figures.
 * I tweaked the wording to say that the increase in ridership was short-term. I'd be interested to see if ridership stayed higher in 1983 too, but I unfortunately don't have any data on that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I think that article length and depth are suitable for the subject matter
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Not grounds for failure, but I think the article could do with a better lead image. A photograph of the station sign, in my opinion, is not a good illustration of the article subject. A wider overview of the station exterior or interior would be better.
 * I found a better picture of the station's exterior, which is now the lead image. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A great improvement. —Jeremy (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm happy with the improvements so I've now passed the article. Well done to all contributors. —Jeremy (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)