Talk:Wachusett station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mackensen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This has to be the only MBTA Commuter Rail article which I've never edited. Hello, thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have some questions about the main text:
 * Under "Former service", Gardner is introduced without explanation. Obviously it's railroad west of Wachusett, but I think it could be better explained.
 * Under "Planning for restoration", there's an uncited statement that the new station would be in West Fitchburg. In the next section, "Funding and design", it's in the town of Westminster. Is this the same place? Different?
 * Under "Funding and design", Pan Am Railways is introduced but without the explanation that it owns some portion of the Fitchburg Line. Relatedly, Pan Am Southern is mentioned in the lede and once in the article. What's the relationship between the two? A later usage of "Pan Am" in the "Construction" section is ambiguous.
 * MART isn't defined in the main text.
 * There's a tense issue in "Funding and design" when describing what the station will look like.
 * "As of then" is repeated a few times; it's good to see how the target opening shifted but perhaps this repetition can be avoided?

I'll read for sourcing next. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've placed the nomination on hold; none of these issues strike me as serious. Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe that I've fixed all of these issues, except one: because Belcher's history is frequently updated, page numbers tend to shift over time. I don't believe that should be a significant issue, as it's a searchable PDF. By the way, I just discovered that the 1914 image is actually one of a set of postcards made of the wreck, thus settling the publication issue. I'm uploading them to Commons as we speak. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll review. I suggest that with Belcher you link directly to an Internet Archive version of the page; that'll also help with verification in the future. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewed; looks good except for Belcher. What do you think? Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very hesitant to use an archived version of a live source just to maintain page numbers; while I do understand the verification issue, it's highly unlikely that the date would be removed from the document. Would switching to a citation format that supports, and possibly adding the archived version to the wikitext with   for futureproofing, be sufficient? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, but it also helps with future verification efforts. It seems plausible that Belcher could revise the relevant section in future revision; being able to link the "March 25, 2017" version, with page references would make it easier (I think) to integrate a future version. I can't and don't insist on it, and I'm happy to pass this as GA if you'd rather not change it. Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to pass it now, then let's do that. I've been thinking about making a template for the Belcher source that would accept the date as a parameter, linking to it with the text "page numbers accurate to March 25, 2017 version" or so on. That would allow me to fix this issue for all articles, rather than just here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)