Talk:Hynes Convention Center station/GA1

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 06:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Will review later this week. Only a few months ago, I used this station about a dozen times because my hostel was a few blocks away, so I'm pretty familiar with it.  Sounder Bruce  06:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No rush, but just wanted to check if you're still interested in doing this review. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit preoccupied with things, but should be able to start this weekend.  Sounder Bruce  23:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed all of your comments below. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Infobox and lead

 * Coordinates should be pared down according to WP:OPCOORD (simplest way is to use DMS without any trailing decimals).
 * Shouldn't it be "Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)'s Green Line"?
 * ❌ Usage among news stories and so on is mixed. I personally prefer the non-possessive form and most MBTA articles on here use that form.
 * Looks fine then, but I would bring this up for a proper discussion with a relevant WikiProject.  Sounder Bruce  08:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd put the neighborhood first and split the intersection into a separate sentence (or merge with the Hynes sentence), otherwise it's a bit of a mouthful.
 * Add "Green Line" before naming the branches
 * Mention that it was originally named Massachusetts station before using it in the opening sentence.
 * "for service by" would flow better as "to be served by"
 * Reworded.
 * Switch the order of the the second sentence to explain the streetcars served before mentioning the opening date
 * "remains partially extant" should be "was not entirely demolished" to avoid current-language issues.
 * "the entrance" should repeat Boylston to prevent confusion
 * I would switch around the completion date and cost for the new project so that it flows better:
 * "The project is expected to be completed in 2025 and cost $45.7 million to construct."
 * "may include" should be "is proposed to include" to prevent weasel wording.
 * "remains partially extant" should be "was not entirely demolished" to avoid current-language issues.
 * "the entrance" should repeat Boylston to prevent confusion
 * I would switch around the completion date and cost for the new project so that it flows better:
 * "The project is expected to be completed in 2025 and cost $45.7 million to construct."
 * "may include" should be "is proposed to include" to prevent weasel wording.
 * "The project is expected to be completed in 2025 and cost $45.7 million to construct."
 * "may include" should be "is proposed to include" to prevent weasel wording.
 * "may include" should be "is proposed to include" to prevent weasel wording.

Station layout

 * Image caption needs to be drastically shortened
 * I'm not sure how best to do this. Should the color meanings only be on the file information page? Having a long caption doesn't seem like a big issue.
 * Took a crack at it. Having only two sentences helps with comprehension.
 * MOS:DASH for "east-west"
 * "east (inbound) of the station" flows better as "east in the inbound direction from the station"
 * ❌ That seems clunkier and no more clear to me
 * What do you mean by "reverse curve"?
 * ✅ rewrote.
 * Replace the semicolon after "entrance is normally closed" with a transition like "but"
 * ✅ Split into two sentences
 * Descriptions of where the bus routes go from the station would be helpful in preventing sentence fragments
 * ✅ Added the MBTA names for the routes.
 * Rather than using the official names, I think specifying one or two major destinations/directions would be better for legibility.
 * That's exactly what the official names are (and yes, the official names use hyphens). I don't see any likely improvements.
 * "Normally-closed" and "Surface-level" do not need to be hyphened. This issue also appears in other spots.
 * Fixed the former. "Surface level" could be ambiguous, so I believe the hyphen is needed.
 * "Normally-closed" and "Surface-level" do not need to be hyphened. This issue also appears in other spots.
 * Fixed the former. "Surface level" could be ambiguous, so I believe the hyphen is needed.

Construction

 * Three consecutive paragraphs begin with some form of "Construction"; add some variation
 * "However, public opinion quickly shifted to a route under Boylston Street, which was developing rapidly" – This sentence could be expanded and doesn't need to begin with "However"
 * ❌ I think "However" makes the transition to the alternate route clearer.
 * "a major civic center" needs to be surrounded by proper dashes
 * "Subway construction started in March 1912" is a fragment that could be merged or expanded on its own
 * Not a fragment, but I've reworded for clarification. There's no need to expand, and no good way to merge.
 * Massachusetts station should not be bolded mid-section
 * Per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT, bolding on first use is appropriate for likely redirect targets (ie the former names). For stations where renaming is too complex to be fully discussed in the lede (as is here), that is in the history section.
 * The policy does not permit bolding this late into the article, and it's frankly unneeded especially in the MBTA section.  Sounder Bruce  08:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree, but I've de-bolded.
 * Exact date for the easement grant is probably unnecessary, and this section definitely needs to be restructured or combined with parts of the following sentence.
 * I've reworded those sentences to be more clear.
 * I'd toss the use of "shoreline", as it is redundant to the filling part of the sentence and can be confusing in some contexts.
 * ❌ Most of the Back Bay was an actual bay; the station location was on the shoreline itself.
 * 7 feet should be spelled out
 * "adjacent and parallel" – drop the adjacent, as it is redundant
 * "The station" is used to begin two consecutive sentences; add some variation
 * "at sea" should be "into the sea", unless there is a specific location in mind?
 * ❌ Not an improvement; "at sea" matches the lack of specificity in the source.
 * "high-floor metro stock" should be "high-floor operations", as the platforms would be converted to metro stock as this implies.
 * Streetcars at the time were high-floor; I've reworded to clarify.
 * "The station was constructed of reinforced concrete with granolithic platforms and floors" – This sentence is a bit short and could be combined with the next one
 * ❌ Variation in sentence length is not a problem, and in fact is specifically recommended in writing style guides. There's no need to combine unless it improves clarity, which it would not here.
 * ❌ Not an improvement; "at sea" matches the lack of specificity in the source.
 * "high-floor metro stock" should be "high-floor operations", as the platforms would be converted to metro stock as this implies.
 * Streetcars at the time were high-floor; I've reworded to clarify.
 * "The station was constructed of reinforced concrete with granolithic platforms and floors" – This sentence is a bit short and could be combined with the next one
 * ❌ Variation in sentence length is not a problem, and in fact is specifically recommended in writing style guides. There's no need to combine unless it improves clarity, which it would not here.

Surface station

 * This section does not need to have two images, which is causing sandwiching on lower-resolution screens.
 * I find the term "prepayment" a bit troublesome as an outsider. Perhaps linking to Paid area and using an expanded term ("pre-paid fare zone"?) would help.
 * tuck the "wide" into the conversion template using.
 * "Boylston Streets" – streets should not be capitalized
 * I'd toss the parenthetical sentence entirely, as it only relates to the streetcar route and not the station, thus is out of scope for this entry.
 * I don't love it, but it's necessary context for later. As explained below, I may be able to simplify some of the surface route content in the future.
 * Move Bowditch into the first sentence, as design usually comes well before construction begins. Is there a name for this "private firm"?
 * Moved Bowditch up. The private firm is wholly non-notable and may have been created solely for this structure; I don't think it's worth naming.
 * "it received a renovation" isn't natural; try "its 1980s renovation was designed by Frank Gehry".
 * I don't love it, but it's necessary context for later. As explained below, I may be able to simplify some of the surface route content in the future.
 * Move Bowditch into the first sentence, as design usually comes well before construction begins. Is there a name for this "private firm"?
 * Moved Bowditch up. The private firm is wholly non-notable and may have been created solely for this structure; I don't think it's worth naming.
 * "it received a renovation" isn't natural; try "its 1980s renovation was designed by Frank Gehry".

Bustitution

 * Again, the double images are causing sandwiching on lower-resolution screens.
 * I would avoid using "bustitution" as the title of the subsection, as it is a bit of a niche term. "Bus replacement" is more generic and doesn't confuse readers.
 * Add direction for Kenmore station
 * MOS:DASH for Boston–Worcester turnpike. Should turnpike be capitalized?
 * ✅ turns out "Worcester Turnpike" was the formal name.
 * Bustituted should be dropped from the prose too, given that it is only used twice.
 * "It too", better to repeat that it was the shuttle to avoid confusion
 * MOS:DATECOMMA, though I question whether we need to have the exact dates for every bus truncation, which are minor events relative to the rest of the station's history. Paring it down to months would be fine.
 * ✅ For now I'm keeping the exact bus dates; I may be able to trim in the future as I create more-focused articles about some of the route groups.
 * A more specific timeframe for the turnpike construction would be welcome, given how much it affected the station.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have any more specific sources at this time.
 * "The remaining part" – "part" is a bit crude here, perhaps "The remaining section facing Newbury Street is used as..."
 * "cross under busy traffic at street level" – To avoid confusion, drop "street level".
 * ✅ For now I'm keeping the exact bus dates; I may be able to trim in the future as I create more-focused articles about some of the route groups.
 * A more specific timeframe for the turnpike construction would be welcome, given how much it affected the station.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have any more specific sources at this time.
 * "The remaining part" – "part" is a bit crude here, perhaps "The remaining section facing Newbury Street is used as..."
 * "cross under busy traffic at street level" – To avoid confusion, drop "street level".
 * "cross under busy traffic at street level" – To avoid confusion, drop "street level".

MBTA era

 * I think it would be good to repeat the original name (Massachusetts station) in place of the first use of "The station", given the name changes described in this section.
 * Switch the link to the Auditorium to its first use
 * ❌ The original name isn't mentioned in the linked article, and I believe the later name was more widely used.
 * Move "in the early 1980s" before "due to security concerns", as I assume the closure was not due to security concerns solely from those years.
 * "as the ICA relocated" should be "after the ICA relocated", if I'm reading the source correctly.
 * As best as I can tell from that article and railfan forum chatter, the renaming occurred more or less simultaneous with the move. (Weirdly, the NEMC-->Tufts change featured in the article was not made official until 2010.)
 * "as the ICA relocated" should be "after the ICA relocated", if I'm reading the source correctly.
 * As best as I can tell from that article and railfan forum chatter, the renaming occurred more or less simultaneous with the move. (Weirdly, the NEMC-->Tufts change featured in the article was not made official until 2010.)

Planned renovations

 * The image caption could be shortened, but should mention what we're looking at (the turnpike) and link to air rights.
 * Avoid using "currently"
 * "a 2013 count" could be just "in 2013" unless something more specific is added
 * The start of design work seems to be more notable than reaching 15 percent design (which is an arbitrary milestone)
 * ✅ 15% was the limit of that contract, and the last that was done for years; I've clarified that.
 * The source indicates that the accessibility design was done on the same contract for two other stations, which should be named here.
 * "announced the opening of bidding" is a mouthful; simplify it to "opened bidding"
 * The source seems to indicate an earlier round of failed bidding. Is there more information on this that can be mentioned?
 * I don't have any information, but I don't recall it being linked to the station as this round was.
 * "but will not perform the work" – specify it as "construction work" or just "construction", as "work" is used by itself earlier in the station
 * "organize renovation" is missing a "the"
 * A bit more information about "The Viola" would be welcome, such as its use type (office/commercial/residential/retail/mixed) and how much square footage or units are planned.
 * "33-month design contract" – what is the design contract for? Repetition is fine here.
 * "The developer" – replace at least one instance with the firm's name
 * "but will not perform the work" – specify it as "construction work" or just "construction", as "work" is used by itself earlier in the station
 * "organize renovation" is missing a "the"
 * A bit more information about "The Viola" would be welcome, such as its use type (office/commercial/residential/retail/mixed) and how much square footage or units are planned.
 * "33-month design contract" – what is the design contract for? Repetition is fine here.
 * "The developer" – replace at least one instance with the firm's name
 * "33-month design contract" – what is the design contract for? Repetition is fine here.
 * "The developer" – replace at least one instance with the firm's name
 * "The developer" – replace at least one instance with the firm's name
 * "The developer" – replace at least one instance with the firm's name

Citations and other comments

 * NETransit seems to be a self-published site. Is there evidence of its author being a subject expert to satisfy the reliable sources requirement?
 * It's effectively published by the Boston Street Railway Association; Belcher is an officer and frequent author there, and Barber and Humphrey are both associated. Belcher and Humphrey are both state transportation planners; Humphrey has published a few books on Boston rail history, and Barber is the author of another source in the article, so I'd say they count as subject matter experts.
 * Citations 35 and 42 need less shouting
 * Many citations are missing appropriate access-dates for citations. Please add them in for consistency.
 * ✅ Added access dates for relevant citations (recent news stories, etc).
 * The archived newspaper links, MBTA webpages, and government websites all need accessdates.
 * Archivedates are not needed for content that does not change (like archived websites) per Help:Citation Style 1.
 * Newspapers.com can (and does) change its offerings from time to time, including rescans of pages, so it would be best to have the clippings paired with an accessdate.
 * That shouldn't affect clippings, though, and the news story written a century ago is still the same. It's not like a story on the Globe website that might be edited.
 * It's a webpage without a fully permanent link, so it will inevitably change (hopefully not, but nothing online is forever). An access-date is a non-harmful addition that makes it clear to readers when the clipping was retrieved; as users can update or change clippings on Newspapers.com, this is a better indicator than using the clipping's creation date in the entry.  Sounder Bruce  23:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that access dates are unnecessary and outright misleading for archived articles published a century ago, and they are not required by policy for these sources.
 * Citation 4: Link to Boston Globe
 * Citation 9: A date is needed; I'd prefer to see a static map instead of a redirect link
 * I've added an accessdate. I prefer the redirect link because readers will always see the current version; in the event the article is not updated, we won't be linking to an outdated source.
 * We can't presume that there will be continual updates for every article using the non-static citation link. It would be fine to link to it, but verifiability doesn't work when readers can't easily figure out which map was being used at the time of writing the article. As an example, Seattle's transit systems change their maps about twice a year, so using a static link with a date parameter helps with future archiving/deadlink repair by pointing editors without prior knowledge to the correct archived version. This is pretty much the only point that is holding up the review.  Sounder Bruce  03:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree - I've seen too many articles with decade-old dead links created this way - but I've changed it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation 12: Link to Boston Street Railway Association
 * Citations 20 and 31 need a publisher
 * Citation 32: Add the latest date and link directly to the archived copy (using url-status=dead in the template), as it seems to change often. The page numbers note can be made into a hidden comment.
 * ❌ See my comments for citation 9. Using an archived copy is a clunky way to solve a non-issue.
 * In any case, per WP:CITEWEB there needs to be an accessdate, and since the website has already apparently been changed to a new version (judging by the PDF title, which says April 7), it would be misleading to not use the archived link first and include all the necessary parameters in the template.  Sounder Bruce  23:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * CITEWEB only requires an accessdate if there is no publication date, which is not the case here, as "March 14, 2020 Version" is clearly on the first page. NETransit (with or without a version-specific link) is already used in about a dozen GAs (Salem station, Aquarium station (MBTA), JFK/UMass station, and Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts) within the last month). I do not think it is fair to hold up an otherwise-finished GA based on the formatting of a single source which meets policy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll pass the article, but I do think that this issue will need a closer look at WP:RSN or another venue. A living document needs to be properly archived for verifiability, so I'm afraid an article using NETransit would not meet the criteria for FA/FL and arguably not for GANs. It may have been overlooked in other reviews, but I am a stickler for good sources in railroading articles, if only to prevent them from being pushed out by deletionists.  Sounder Bruce  06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation 41: Link to Boston Redevelopment Authority
 * Citation 47: Link to Boston Business Journal
 * CITEWEB only requires an accessdate if there is no publication date, which is not the case here, as "March 14, 2020 Version" is clearly on the first page. NETransit (with or without a version-specific link) is already used in about a dozen GAs (Salem station, Aquarium station (MBTA), JFK/UMass station, and Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts) within the last month). I do not think it is fair to hold up an otherwise-finished GA based on the formatting of a single source which meets policy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll pass the article, but I do think that this issue will need a closer look at WP:RSN or another venue. A living document needs to be properly archived for verifiability, so I'm afraid an article using NETransit would not meet the criteria for FA/FL and arguably not for GANs. It may have been overlooked in other reviews, but I am a stickler for good sources in railroading articles, if only to prevent them from being pushed out by deletionists.  Sounder Bruce  06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation 41: Link to Boston Redevelopment Authority
 * Citation 47: Link to Boston Business Journal
 * Citation 47: Link to Boston Business Journal