Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lake Street Transfer station/archive1

Lake Street Transfer station

 * Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a double-decker elevated rail station. Chicago is a city (in)famous for keeping most of its rapid transit above-ground, and this was particularly the case before the 1940s and 1950s, when it didn't have any subways. A particularly striking example of this "L"-mania, coming about due to the competing rail lines of the 1890s, was when two lines, the Metropolitan and Lake Street Elevateds, crossed each other, making the Metropolitan have to cross over the Lake Street. This is the article about the station at that crossing, and the tracks surrounding it and the circumstances that led to its demise and replacement by a subway. This is my first time writing an article about transit despite being a lifelong railfan, but from what I understand I'll ping Lost on Belmont, Kew Gardens 613, and ZKang123 (the last of whom gave me advice to which I am indebted) as particularly appropriate prospective reviewers of this article. If this works out, I hope to also get a Four Award out of this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp
More to come. Steelkamp (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the first sentence of the lead. You have to read all the way to the end of it to find out what city the station is in. The railroads are quite wordy so I think this sentence would benefit from being split into two.
 * Fixed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Milwaukee–Dearborn subway uses lowercase subway, but this article uses uppercase Subway. Is there a reason for this?
 * There is an inconsistency between the lead and body as to whether "the Subway" has the s capitalised or not.
 * Both of these have been addressed by making "subway" all lowercase. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it can be hard to make maps look good, but File:Laketransfercontext.svg is quite ugly. Could you ask for someone at Graphics Lab to make a better map? It also lacks labels in the actual image. Maybe if labels were added to the image, the caption wouldn't need to be quite so long.
 * I added the lakeshore and river to the map to put some geographic context to everything, hopefully that doesn't make it worse. I've also considered making labels in the image, but I'm not sure to what extent that would leave visually-impaired persons unable to receive information from the caption. Granted, I doubt such persons would use the map directly anyway, but perhaps it saves on the alt text. I also think it's best practice to leave keys and legends outside of the map proper, but could be wrong on that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox image lacks alt text.
 * Added. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First mention of Chicago "L" in the body can be linked.
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What's up with the station name in all capitals in the infobox? Also, what does 1700W 200N mean?
 * See below. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments; I'll address the other concerns over the weekend, but just for quick reference the all caps is representative of period correct-ish platform signage, and the "1700W 200N" refers to the station's position in Chicago's street grid system (more specifically, it is 17 blocks west of State Street and 2 blocks north of Madison Street), which is ubiquitous on Chicago "L" signs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "between California and the Market Street Terminal." This should be changed to California station to avoid confusion with the state. Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done in most places, not done in a few places where context should be sufficient as explained in the edit summary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "The station house at California in 2011". Same thing. Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done, as "station house at California station" is redundant, awkward, and unneeded given other context clues in the articles and my edits. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does "Congress Superhighway" need to be capitalised? Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, it doesn't. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Skip-stop on the Chicago "L" began as an experiment on the Lake Street Elevated on April 5, 1948; stations in between Pulaski and the Loop, exclusive, became either "A" or "B" stations and were serviced by respective "A" or "B" trains during weekdays. Despite being located in this area, Lake Street Transfer was exempt from this system and continued to be serviced by all Lake Street Elevated trains." I suggest rewording this to "When skip-stop trains began on the Lake Street Elevated on April 5, 1948, Lake Street Transfer was the only station between Pulaski and the Loop to be serviced by all trains." Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll have to disagree with you on this part. I want to express that a) skip-stop on the entire system began on the Lake Street "L" (and then, implicitly, spread to other lines), and b) what "skip-stop" actually means (i.e., "A" trains and "B" trains). Perhaps a better wording is possible, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes www.chicago-l.org reliable? Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Graham Garfield, the man who operates that site, has worked for the CTA his entire adult life, cites his sources, and takes advantage of huge collections such as the Krambles-Peterson archive. As such, I think the website is certainly adequate, although I leave the question of "high-quality". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't got enough time to do the full review I would have liked to. However, I will say I oppose based on featured article criteria 1c. I don't consider Chicago-L.org to be a high-quality source. Even if it were a high quality source, I don't think this article would meet this criterion as 11 out of the 16 reference footnotes are to this website and the majority of paragraphs cite only that website. For this page to reach the featured article criteria, I think that website should be removed and replaced with newspapers and, if possible, books. Steelkamp (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think a full removal of Chicago-L.org will be feasible, especially for minor details, but I will say that for any future FAC (should this fail, of course, which is up to others) that I'll use newspaper and book sources more heavily once I go to my library. Thanks for your feedback! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Elias / Your Power
I know nothing about trains ... except for the fact that they get things moving I suppose ... so consider this a prose review from a beginner POV. Comments to come this weekend ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍  ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 06:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

📝 "Don't get complacent..." 08:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You said you would comment on this two weeks ago, would you happen to have any comments on this? Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @John M Wolfson: I am an extremely forgetful person; really sorry that this flew under my radar! I was busy the past few weeks, but work is done for the week and now I have time to review this. Comments below; obviously feel free to point out short-sighted comments. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍  ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"


 * An aside, but re. Steelkamp's question and the nom's response - "high-quality" usually entails that the author is a professional on the relevant field, or the website employs a rigorous editorial process. So to answer "what makes 'Chicago-L.org' a high-quality source" would be to provide the author's credentials. I think the response above is sufficient, but John, feel free to expound on that if you wish
 * The web sources here can use some Internet Archive links - I see that ref 1 has one but the others do not.
 * Will do, probably later today. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would help to specify the Chicago "L" was a rapid transit system in the first sentence of the lead (and maybe the prose's first sentence as well), at least from the POV of a total outsider
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "passengers would then" that "then" could be removed and the sentence would still retain its meaning
 * Changed the ", and" to ";" instead. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * is there a MOS-based reason for why "Wood" and "Lake" are bolded on the lead?
 * Because this is, in a sense, "their" article as well; indeed, Wood station redirects to a subsection that is discussed below. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "The transfer station was an amalgamation of two separate stations – Wood on the Lake Street Elevated, one block west of the site of the future transfer station on Wood Street, and Lake on the Metropolitan that was on the site – that had been constructed in 1893 and 1895, respectively" -> sentence is way too long and complex for comfort
 * I tried to refactor it so it wasn't so unseemly, hopefully it works! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like the subsection for Wood station is too short that it can be merged with the one for Lake station. Both subsections deal with the transfer station's predecessors anyway, so the theme would be consistent
 * Not done, mostly to keep the redirect mentioned above, as well as to keep these stations conceptually separate. If others agree with you, however, I can change it. To your point, the subsections used to be longer before I migrated their details to the "station details" section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "on which the Metropolitan's station lay" the sentence is in past tense; that should be "laid" instead
 * Not done, as "lay" is also the past tense of "lie", which is intended. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "which operated one single line" -> redundant
 * Changed into "a single line" to contrast it with the Met's branches. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "the Metropolitan had a main line" gives MOS:EASTEREGG-y vibes; I thought it was linked to Main line (railway) for a sec. Perhaps including "a" in the "Metropolitan main line" wikilink will solve the problem
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "from downtown to Marshfield Junction, whereupon it split into three branches" this can be simplified into "where"
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "one northwestern branch going to Logan Square (which in turn would have a branch into Humboldt Park), one going due west to Garfield Park, and one southwestern branch to Douglas Park." -> FAs must feature concise writing; we can remove the italicised words. Moreover we can change "into" to "to" so that the sentence has consistency
 * Done, except that I kept "due west" to contrast with "northwest" and "southwest". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Since this station crossed the pre-existing Lake Street Elevated" we already know that Lake Street Elevated was pre-existing because the prose gives events chronologically. There is no need to state it out loud
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Will take a break from here. More to come ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍  ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 08:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC) <sub style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">📝 "Don't get complacent..." 12:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback; do feel free (and this goes for everyone else, as well) to make any minor edits/copyediting yourself and save FAC for issues you feel are big enough to warrant it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild and @John M Wolfson: I am terribly sorry, but I have gotten more busy with school, so I have less time and motivation to continue giving this article a proper review. I skimmed the article again with a fresh pair of eyes, and the prose does look more promising compared to when I first saw it. The FAC is headed in the right direction, IMO, but unfortunately I don't feel like in a position to support or oppose. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:4px;background:#926f52;color:white;">‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"><sup style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">💬 "What did I tell you?"

Coordinator note

 * More than three weeks in and this nomination has yet to pick up a support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd hate for this to be archived due to inactivity. do you guys have any further thoughts on this article? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been procrastinating. I will look at the article again soon. Steelkamp (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Lost on Belmont

 * I'm quite busy with classes, work, and a newborn, but I will attempt to give this a good onceover in the next few days with comments/suggestions if I get the time. (No promises though.) Lost on Belmont 3200N<sub style="margin-left:-3.2em">1000W  (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Image review
I note that an image review has yet to be done. Quick checking through the three images, all have descriptive alts, captions and freely licensed. No major concerns. IR is a pass.-- ZKang123 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "Plans to replace the Logan Square branch in the area, on which the Metropolitan's station lay, with a subway". A railway line was replaced by a subway?
 * An elevated railway, essentially a subway above ground, so yes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is presumably a difference between UK and US usage. I would take a subway to be a foot tunnel. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, I thought the language barrier would have been in an "elevated railway" being necessarily rapid transit. Ah well, thanks for the support! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "These pieces of transit would be connected". "pieces" is an odd word here - sections?
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Queen Anne style should be linked - Queen Anne style architecture in the United States?
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "designed by the its engineers" typo. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Dudley, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * With only one support four weeks after nomination I would be looking to time this one out. The open oppose rather forces my hand, so I am afraid that I am archiving. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)