Talk:Ridgefield Park station

Station opening
The New Jersey Midland Railway (a predecessor to the NYSW) had built a line through the Ridgefields in 1872, but with no station.


 * Read the source I provided, which was produced the by the railroad. I didn't make this up. Mitch 32 (My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.)  05:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there an online version of that source, which is real estate promotion? Is there a quote that specifically states that a station opened on the claimed date. Clearly in conflict with inline source in text (on line access provided above, page 94), which states that line came thru, but specifically states no station built until 1883. Verifiability is required here. Djflem (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The link's right there. There is a timetable fare chart in the source along with a map that clearly reads RIDGEFIELD PARK between New Durham and Bogota. Mitch 32 (My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 22:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears that there is conflicting information about the opening date, but that a depot was built by 1876.
 * is described as a catalogue and describes an imaginery trip.


 * Your statement on my source is a complete fabrication. These were made with the completion of the railroad. The link I provided to the page with the fare chart was provided from the railroad. The source did not fake a fare chart. Mitch 32 (My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 23:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also your source cites no sources and Ridgefield Park and Ridgefield are NOT the same thing. Mitch 32 (My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 23:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , by the same author, and is also described as a catalogue (see website which you provided with your source and the text within it), would also seem to support 1872 opening date, though the map included is vague. would support the statmente that it came at a later date. So there are the discrepansies in the sources. (If indeed Caltin articles are produced by the railroad, as you claim,  then they are PRIMARY.)


 * But, most crucially, what adding information to the info box that is in direct contradiction to what is in the body of the article, as you have done, invalidates the piece itself. So, what is your suggestion for reconciling contradictions of the different sources, in the body and infobox that you have introduced? Djflem (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Mine has a railroad fare chart in it. Therefore it is the primary source, from 1872. The solution is to change this to 1872 as that is where primary sources indicate. Mitch 32 (My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 06:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you read PSTS, which specifically says that primary sources are unacceptable if not backed up by

secondary and tertiary sources? But yes, you are welcome to re-write the article reflecting the information that you have added to it if you are indeed satisfied with the primary source. The 2nd Catlin primary sourc I have provided above adds strength to the claim and should be added. Can you please use the inline format for INTEGRITY? I would suggest the caveat: While some sources cite a latter date, contemporary promotional material from 1872 states that the station opened that year...  leaving the other sources to clarify this. Thanks. Djflem (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

C-class
Per Content assessment, this is certainly at C-class: The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research...It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.

If the article does not satisfy the criteria, please be specific.Djflem (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)