Talk:South Attleboro station/GA1

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
 ❯❯❯  S A H A   10:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Putting on hold due to some issues. Couldn't find the parking space numbers and fees details in the citation.  ❯❯❯  S A H A   18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first para of 'Bus connections' is unsourced
 * In infobox parking is 568, in body its 579.
 * Both done. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Parking fee not required. Too much detail.
 * That's pretty commons for station articles. While I don't love it, parking fees are unfortunately one of the most common things that readers come here looking for. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * true, but as we are going for GA, it needs to be omitted.  ❯❯❯  S A H A   07:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Given that it hasn't been an issue in half a dozen previous GAs of other MBTA Commuter Rail arguments, I don't see why it's an impediment to GA, nor why it is disallowed. Do you have any other comments, or is this the only remaining sticking point? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will go for a 2nd opinion then.  ❯❯❯  S A H A   11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * asked me to provide a second opinion (and I know I'm a little late). Normally I would suggest (but not require) excluding parking fees, since it's a gray area in WP:NOTGUIDE. However, because it's a relatively minor point and such fees are mentioned in similar good articles as well, I'd leave it alone for the sake of consistency. epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to go. As per the 2nd opinion provided by epicgenius.  ❯❯❯  S A H A   14:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added a citation with both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)