Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marshfield station/archive2

Marshfield station

 * Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the most complicated junction of the Chicago "L", and the station that served it. The last nomination timed out with little feedback, but after focusing my efforts on other topics and a quick lookover from I feel that this is one of the best "L" articles – indeed, one of the best articles – I have ever written and am quite excited to bring it to FAC again. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis
Hey there! I'm gonna provide image review and some prose review, though I'm sure mine won't be as comprehensive as the other folks here so hope you're fine with it. I've divided each comments with invisible comm.  Gerald WL  09:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Image review -- licenses are appropriate and really neat rationales. Good choice of images too, however quoting WP's page: "If it needs to be longer, the important details should appear in the first few words, allowing the user of a screen reader to skip forward once the key points are understood." The first image alt is sufficient-- only suggest removing "viewer's", but the second is quite complex. Since the car and the junctions are the main elements, you can just say that "an approaching wooden train awaits the departure of another train at the rightmost platform."  Gerald WL  08:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Did some pruning of the second alt (decided not to touch the lead alt since egocentric terms like "left"/"right" can get confusing). I also did not know that Inflation let you simply default to the latest year, hopefully it gets updated frequently enough so that my auto-updating year trick still works. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks much better now! I'll wait for the Eisenhower thing to be resolved so that I'll sp this nom.  Gerald WL  09:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since "the part of I-294 eastward" includes Marshfield's location, and given my previous statements (not to mention the WBEZ ref), I still feel no action is warranted in that respect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see-- I didn't look into the sources, but having seen the WBEZ article I think it's all good to go. Wonderful work on this article, not the kind I thought I might take my time in reading but it's engaging :) Support. Also if you're interested, I have a FAC-awaiting PR that is in need of comments-- but otherwise have a nice day!  Gerald WL  05:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk
That's all from me, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - "station on 52nd Avenue" is a red link, and I don't see a particular reason; this seems like the kind of thing to pipe to another article
 * WP:REDLINKs are perfectly acceptable as long as there is reasonable expectation that the article will eventually be created, which I believe that article has (in fact, I might create it later today).
 * - WP:INTOTHEWOULDS, change to "wasn't created until..."
 * No contractions on Wikipedia, but otherwise done.
 * - use an endash (– to copy) like in the station's own article
 * Good catch, thanks!
 * - "engendered"? Might just be me, but that's a new word- perhaps a wikt link?
 * I think it's the best word, but if it's too arcane "generated" might be a second best.
 * Might just be my opinion, but a good bit of "Closure and demolition" doesn't talk about the station. The first paragraph doesn't even say "Marshfield" until the very last sentence. Perhaps some pruning could be done
 * You're not the only one who's raised similar concerns at my "L" station FACs, but I believe that some context is in order for the demolition of Marshfield to make sense.
 * I'm surprised to find no track layout diagram, like in the infobox for 21st Street–Queensbridge station. It'd make sense under "Station details"
 * It's in the infobox.
 * Thanks for your feedback! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - you make fair points on objections, very nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead goes into excessive detail. It's about 13% of the length of the body.  Looking at it another way, the body is 16480 characters, which is at the low end of MOS:LEADLENGTH's 15-30k range, suggesting "Two or three paragraphs".  The second paragraph, which talks about the history of the Metropolitan line, could be eliminated entirely.  Go over the rest, trimming whatever bits are part of "a summary of the most important contents of the article".  You could probably end up with about half the size of the current lead.
 * In general, rephrase sentences to avoid repeating words. For example, in the first paragraph of the lead, you've got ...which then diverged into three branches: the northwestern Logan Square branch, the western Garfield Park branch, and the southwestern Douglas Park branch.  That could be shortened to "...which then diverged into three branches: Logan Square, Garfield Park, and Douglas Park".  I see 17 uses of "construct" (and variations); a greater variety of vocabulary would make for more interesting reading.
 * (follow up) I'll stand by my statements above that the lead should be shorter. The idea is to grab the attention of the reader and tease them into wanting to read the rest of article to get additional details.  I get that a railfan would find everything in the lead exciting, but you're writing for a more general audience, not for railfans.  I would concentrate on the things that make Marshfield Station special.  I mentioned the second paragraph in my original notes.  It has nothing to do with Marshfield specifically; it would fit equally well into any article about anything related to the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad.  RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A lead is also meant to summarize the contents of the body, so structure-wise I think the current four paragraphs fit quite well. With respect to internal content, I think the first and fourth paragraphs were perfect as is, but trimmed the second and third paragraphs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what MOS:LEAD means by "summary of its most important contents" (my emphasis). RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

History

 * one northwest to Logan Square, one due west to Garfield Park, and one southwest to Douglas Park, link smaller bits of text to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE.
 * While strictly speaking the links are separated by commas, in the spirit of readability I have reduced them, but have still included the "to"s since I'm not directly linking the neighborhoods in question. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As designed, the Metropolitan's operations comprised..., this implies that what was actually built was different from what was designed. Is that correct?  I'm not seeing anything that explains how they differed.
 * Removed the phrase entirely. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading through this entire section, it's interesting and well researched, but very little is actually about Marshfield station. There are some bits and pieces which are, mostly that the junction at the station required more complicated switching.  Other than that, it seems like it would fit just as well into an article about any of the stations on the Metropolitan main line with almost no changes.
 * As said below, I disagree with this assessment – the station needs to be placed in its proper context, and most Met stations had nothing to do with the AE&C/CA&E. I could possibly see some trimming of the "Closure and demolition" section, but even that still has enough Marshfield-specific information, such as its status during the demolition, that it could be kept. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Station details

 * This is the heart of the article, and should be given greater prominence compared to the History section (which, as noted above, could be cut extensively).
 * Metropolitan's station houses had central heating and basements. I'm having trouble picturing how a station on an elevated rail line could have a basement.
 * This is the station house, the building underneath the tracks. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (follow up) I don't know what is common on most elevated systems, but the picture I have in my mind is driven by how the els work in New York; the station houses are entirely elevated and all that descends to the street are flights of stairs. Perhaps add something explaining that stations on the Chicago system all had ground-level buildings, and then you could add the detail that unlike the other lines, the ones on this line had heating and basements.  RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all stations on the "L" had/have street-level houses – those on the Lake Street Elevated such as Ashland and those downtown such as the old Madison/Wabash station are/were "New York style" with track-level houses – but those on the Metropolitan did, which I have included in passing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Three switches existed at this interlocking, all of which were hand-thrown by 1952 I'm not sure what "by 1952" means in this context.
 * The source was from 1952, but I doubt that non-hand-thrown junctions existed before then, so removed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Operations

 * By 1898, this schedule was updated. Another odd use of "by".  Perhaps "In 1898 the schedule was updated..."?   Also, move "during night hours" to the beginning of the sentence, so it's not a surprise when you get to it.
 * The source is an 1898 map which appears to have been made before then, but I have no certainty on that matter, hence the "by". At any rate, the night hours have been moved up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The paragraph starting Unlike other elevated railroads at the time... doesn't say anything specific about this station. It's all generic to the Metropolitan line, so I'm not sure what it adds to this article.
 * It was an antecedent to the Met station agents, but it actually works better as a segue between the Met agents and the CA&E staff, so I've moved it accordingly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Neighborhood and connections

 * A streetcar ran on Ashland Avenue... as above, this seems generic to the Metropolitan line, and doesn't really add anything to the reader's understanding of Marshfield station in particular.
 * Actually, the streetcar route was perpendicular to the Met line, so Marshfield was the only station served by it. Combined with the Van Buren line, I think this furthers the understanding of the neighborhood of this era, another part about my spiel of providing greater context than the station itself. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ridership

 * ridership steadily increased throughout the following decades, delete "throughout the following decades"; it doesn't add anything.
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * less than four million annually starting in 1949, and declining in that period of time simplify to "less than four million in 1949, and declined after that".
 * Simplified to less than four million annually, and declining, in the period from 1949. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Faced with this onslaught. Does the source use the word "onslaught"?  If so, quote it.  If not, find a less WP:POV way to say that.
 * The CA&E was never especially profitable, and the brutal combination of factors that led to ridership declining, and the changing economy of the post-war US, was described by Weller and Stark as making the CA&E's demise "inevitable" (their word, not mine), so I think any POV used by that word is appropriate and if anything necessary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Overall impression
I think the writing in general could be tightened up and probably end up at about half the current length. See WP:FACR: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail".
 * Ouch!, this sounds as if you think that the article is not currently ready for FAC, and that you feel it would best be withdrawn to be worked on off-FAC with a view to eventual resubmission. Is that the impression you intended to give? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, after my last foray into an "Oppose" that needed to be walked back, I wasn't going to be so bold, but... Maybe it's best to get another opinion from somebody with more review experience? RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While I'm certainly biased here, I will point out that this has received two supports and Mr. Smith hasn't yet cast an oppose !vote. Do the coordinators believe that a week is available to fix his concerns? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (Also, I believe that many details not directly related to the station are useful to have to put it in broader context, so I creatively differ from Roy in that regards. I'm sure we can strike a balance, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC))
 * I wanted to clarify what Roy's view of the nomination was, I am aware that despite their great Wikipedia experience they are relatively new to Wikipedia. As you say, there are two supports, so given Roy's comment above there is no immediate time pressure on the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi John M Wolfson, do you believe that you have now addressed Roy's concerns? If so, perhaps you could invite them to have another look? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Through the miracle of my watchlist, I'll consider myself invited. I'll take another look.  Before I do, however, I'll preface this by saying as I'm obviously new to FAC, I'm not sure how much weight by comments should carry. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Worry ye not Roy, weighing input is part and parcel of the coordinator's role. And yours is likely to given more weight than you are modestly suggesting. Eg, you prompted me to have a hard look at the lead and Mr Wolfson is being very constructive in their responses. I don't know to what extent this allays your concerns in this area. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I came into this movie at Special:Permalink/1173388907 and comparing that to the current version, I see things have been tightened up a bunch. I grew up on Strunk & White, so the desire to cut words is deeply ingrained.  Anyway, I'm good. RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of notes marked by "(follow up)". My main concern at this point is that the lead goes into excessive detail. RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Overall I can see why RoySmith suggested above that the article could be shortened, but I think "half the current length" is too draconian. I've mentioned a couple of places where I think cuts could be made but most of the article seems detailed, but not inappropriately so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "when it, alongside the main line and the Garfield Park branch, was demolished to make way": suggest "when it was demolished, along with the main line and the Garfield Park branch, to make way"
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "With interruptions and financial issues, it operated its lines until 1911": this seems a bit compressed. Do you mean something it "It operated its lines, with interruptions, until 1911", and also that it had financial issues during this time?  If so I think I'd cut the financial issues mention unless the reader can be shown why it's relevant here.
 * I have changed it to "with interruptions and difficulties", unless you think the interruptions imply difficulties. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Substantial revisions to the lines that had been constructed by the Metropolitan had been planned since the 1930s. These projects ended up replacing the Logan Square branch with a subway to go directly downtown, and substituting a rapid transit right-of-way in the median of the Eisenhower for the main line and Garfield Park branch." Suggest "Substantial revisions to the lines that had been constructed by the Metropolitan had been planned since the 1930s, and led to the replacement of the Logan Square branch with a subway to go directly downtown, and the substitution of a rapid transit right-of-way in the median of the Eisenhower for the main line and Garfield Park branch."  But I'm also not sure that "had been planned" is the tense you really want here -- "had" implies the narrative is positioned at a point later than that, but in the past.  The previous sentences talk about earlier events, so I think it would be better to convert this to tenses that work as linear narrative.
 * Decided to keep the sentences separate, but changed the pluperfect to the past. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "since" has the same effect as "had". If you want to keep "since" I would just change it back to "had", but what I was thinking was something like "...began to be planned in the 1930s". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Replaced with "starting". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "but retrofitting the third rail proved an easy task outside of the switches of the main line": I think "outside of" is an Americanism; I know this is AmEng, but how about "but retrofitting the third rail proved an easy task except for the switches of the main line".
 * Changed to "besides". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "and has been described as being "the most elaborate and complex junction on the Chicago elevated system" as late as 1948": I don't think this quite works. If you have "has been described as ...  as late as " you're implying that more than one source said such a thing, which I would guess is a true statement.  Once you give a specific quote you have to rephrase because the surrounding words now imply that the identical phrase ("the most elaborate...") was used in more than one source, the latest of which was 1948.  You could fix this by paraphrasing instead of quoting, if as it seems there were multiple sources saying this, and optionally tagging on the quote and date for emphasis.
 * Moved the date around, hopefully this addresses some of your concerns. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The first part of that works well, but I'd suggest changing "and has been described as being as late as 1948" to "was described as late as 1948 as being". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The source from the quote is a 1999 work reconstructing the experience of a CA&E rider in 1948, so that would be inaccurate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it that way; you're right that what I suggested doesn't work, but I think it needs rewording to avoid misreading. How about just 'more so than other elevated railroads at the time, and as late as 1948 was still "the most elaborate and complex junction on the Chicago elevated system"'?  "Has been described" isn't really needed -- you give a quote and the reader can see it's a description.  This phrasing connects the date with the complexity, not with the date of the statement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "The expenses incurred in constructing the Metropolitan's vast trackage would catch up to the company": suggest "catch up to the construction company", since otherwise finding the right antecedent for "company" takes a second's thought.
 * The "company" in question was the Metropolitan; I have changed the sentence to clarify any mistakes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to add a line to the map in the history section showing the AE&S? I'm a bit lost in the paragraph starting "The interurban..." as I have no idea where Aurora and Garfield Park are; I don't think they have to be marked on the map but just showing the line would give me a bit of orientation.
 * In the mapframe given, the AE&C's tracks were identical to the ones used by the Garfield Park branch, the one going due west. If you are thus insistent, I could add another mapframe to zoom out for the AE&C system as a whole, but that creates sandwiching issues IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think just adding that information to the caption would be enough -- "The line going west from the station represents both the Garfield Park branch and ..." or something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be picky, but can we make it "also carried CA&E trains ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "was not created until 1945, nor assumed operation of the "L" until October 1, 1947": suggest either "was not created until 1945, and did not assume operation of the "L" until October 1, 1947" as "created" is passive and "assumed" is active, which prevents the parallel construction from working.
 * Changed to passive "given". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Closure and demolition" section seems to me to mostly contain material not directly relevant to the station. From the point of view of a reader interested specifically in Marshfield station, what would be lost if that first paragraph were cut to "Plans for Chicago to have a subway system to relieve the severe congestion of, if not replace, its elevated trackage dated back to the early 20th century, but the city lagged in building subways.  A plan for downtown east-west streetcar tunnels was eventually adopted in 1938, and in 1939 this was combined with a proposal to replace the main line and Garfield Park branch with a section of rapid transit operating through a superhighway (the eventual Interstate 290 or "Eisenhower")These sections of transit would be connected, allowing for the northwest side's rapid transit to be routed through downtown rather than adhere to a trunk-and-branch model. Work soon began on the subway, which was 82 percent complete when World War II forced its suspension in 1942. It finally opened on February 25, 1951, rerouting Logan Square and Humboldt Park trains from Marshfield Junction."  To be honest I think it could be cut further (why does the reader of this article care that the plan came together in two steps, in 1938 and 1939, for example?) but I'll pause here before reading further to see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that you're not the first person to talk about this, I've decided to make a few trimmings to the section. Hopefully they are acceptable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's definitely an improvement. A couple of things I think could still be cut in that section:
 * The first paragraph gives four sentences of history of the plan for the the Congress Line. It's all good material but an interested reader who goes to the Congress Line article and then looks at each of the station articles on that line isn't going to want all that detail in each station article.  A summary highlighting the points that affect this station is all that's needed. Here I think we could cut mention of both Ickes and Kelly, and the fact that the superhighway was "more thoroughly planned in the early 1930s".
 * Did some trimming, and rearranged the first two paragraphs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you say what it is about "more thoroughly planned in the early 1930s" that makes you want to keep it? I'm still not seeing how it helps a reader of this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For the start of paragraph two, I don't think we need the detail about the delays in starting construction. How about "Construction on the expressway and Congress Line was formally authorized in 1946. Clearance of the right-of-way began in 1949 and was largely complete by 1952 ..."  The rest of that paragraph looks fine as it all affects Marshfield.
 * Since the subway's opening directly impacted Marshfield by removing Logan Square service to it, I believe it is somewhat relevant. Also relevant is how the Congress part lagged behind the subway part, which I have rearranged the paragraphs for. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't concerned about the subway sentence -- I agree that's relevant. I was suggesting cutting "on the other hand, had not started even though it had been adopted by the City Council in 1940". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the third paragraph I don't understand the fourth sentence, starting "The CA&E, having long struggled financially". What's the connection between their finances and the rest of the sentence?  And what makes this relevant to a reader interested in Marshfield?
 * Swapped some things around to make it a bit more logical. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's clearer and I agree now that it's relevant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "after being disallowed by state regulators to abandon rail service altogether": "disallowed to abandon" doesn't work. Perhaps "after state regulators did not allow Metropolitan to abandon rail service altogether" or "refused to allow", but there are other ways to fix this.
 * "barred from ... by state regulators" should work, but if doesn't feel free to tweak it yourself as appropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance of the sentence starting "After the change" in the fourth paragraph? I think this is probably OK, just wanted to check my understanding.  It's included because Marshfield is where these transfers would have occurred before the change -- is that right?  If so I think it's fine as is.
 * It is, yes; as mentioned earlier, Garfield Park service to Marshfield had been discontinued in September 1953. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The paragraph about the streetcars seems to be more about competition to the Metropolitan overall than about this station in particular.
 * As I said above, it's more about Marshfield's neighborhood, thus putting the station in some context, but I can see your point. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a bit of relevance, but I think you could cover what matters to the station in one or two sentences. Just saying "streetcars ran on streets X and Y nearby and represented competion to Metropolitan, siphoning its passengers, and that they were replaced by buses on dates A and B" seems like it would be enough.  This is a good paragraph for History of public transport in Chicago, or one of its sub-articles, but I think it's too much detail for here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I trimmed some of the more extraneous details, including even the competition with the Metropolitan. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi John M Wolfson, have you addressed all of Mike's points? If so, perhaps you could ping them. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have, which is why I was surprised that hadn't responded. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been much busier than usual in RL. Will try to look at this tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. My only remaining concern is that I think there's a little too much detail -- you've cut quite a bit already, I know.  Rather than give chapter and verse, I've made the cuts I would recommend.  Feel free to revert if you think that material really is needed for this article -- I think the cut phrases relate to the line as a whole and aren't needed here but you may disagree.  If you revert the whole edit I am still happy to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

On length, and et ceteras
Since length seems to be the only WP:FA? criteria that is causing a stir, I'll limit my comments to this. I must disagree with the suggestion that the article is excessively lengthy; it looks big in bytes and characters, but we do not measure with them. We look at it in words. This is less than 3,000 words; if any thing, it verges, in fact, on the short. See WP:SIZERULE, which states that for articles of less than 6,000 words, Length alone does not justify division or trimming. Having read it, while the prose may want to be played with, this is, in my view, down to a variety of language improving the reader's experience. The language need not be adjusted to remove non-existent bloat. In my view, the article absolutely conforms to 1B and 1C and concomitantly criterion 4. 1A, as I said, may well be debatable, but is anyone opposing on the actual quality of the writing? I mean, unless it gets submitted to us scrawled in fingerpaints... Cheers,  SN54129  14:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * My objections were not based on length per-se, but on "unnecessary detail". RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per se, you suggested it should be half the length. No way is that merely too much detail. And to be honest, more than vague handwaves towards unnecessary detail are required; concrete examples are. You don't have to re-write it, but you do have to present evidence. In any case, this isn't the place to discuss the criteria more broadly, although I'll happily join the discussion at WT:FAC. Cheers,  Serial  14:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done


 * What makes Forgotten Chicago a high-quality reliable source? Railfans' Association?
 * In what cases are you including publisher locations?


 * How are you ordering Works cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgotten Chicago is a reliable source for the purpose and cites its sources and names its authors appropriately. The CERA has been around for almost a century now, and is as close to the "gold standard" as it gets to Chicago-area rail history, in comparison to both primary sources and more "fan" sites like the (unused in this article) Chicago-L.org. I include publisher locations in bibliographic entries whenever they are readily available to me. I sort the Works cited section in alphabetical order based on how the footnotes are named, which in turn is, in descending order, author surname and year > organization acronym and year > description of the work with a year > description of the work without a year. Any edge cases in that respect were decided by me by either aesthetics or whimsy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes Forgotten Chicago "a reliable source for the purpose"? What makes CERA the "gold standard"? Why is the first source sorted with year first while others are sorted by description first? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, FC cites its sources appropriately and is used in the article appropriately as a minor source. CERA publishes books based on original research of primary sources not generally available to the public, and turns such research into coherent in-depth histories of the relevant lines that sites such as Chicago-L.org use for their own articles. There is no reason to doubt its quality, much less reliability, other than issues with which it would be biased, which are primarily focused on the usefulness of transit altogether and out of scope for a specific station, or possibly age (1995), for which case new information is unlikely to emerge for a station that has been gone for several decades. "1895 Review" is year first because "Review" is not the proper name of an organization or author, and "Renumbering Plan" doesn't have a year attached because "1909 Renumbering Plan" seemed a bit too long and unaesthetic for my liking. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We cite our sources too, that doesn't make us reliable ;-) Can you demonstrate that these sources have a reputation for accuracy? Are they regarded as credible by the scholarly community? What are their editorial processes? Are the authors noted experts in the field? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For that article specifically, cited sources include primary sources such as the Chicago Tribune, scholarly sources such as Williams et al., Chicago-L.org (used in other FAs such as Lake Street Transfer station), and correspondence with experts such as Graham Garfield, so passes the sniff test when it comes to the minor detail it is used for in this article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, citing sources alone doesn't make a source reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, I was addressing your concern about the sources FC cites being themselves reliable. For FC in particular, it has a staff of historians and editors who presumably either subject their articles to some form of review or else have subject-matter expertise in them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead length
Recusing to comment.


 * I agree with re MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADLENGTH and am leaning oppose as 2a is not in my opinion met: the lead is not concise. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I still somewhat disagree, but it appears I'm outvoted. I've condensed the lead, trimming content and merging the last two paragraphs into one history/demise paragraph. Now the lead is shorter than the first part of the History section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that trimming 17 words, a 4% reduction, does not alter my opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed yet again, but if it is still not to your satisfaction then I'm afraid we might be at an impasse. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let us try to avoid that. Is the following really essential for a summary? "the northwestern Logan Square branch, the western Garfield Park branch, and the southwestern Douglas Park branch." Similarly "The CA&E was a descendant of the Aurora Elgin and Chicago Railway (AE&C), which had become bankrupt in the aftermath of World War I and split into the CA&E in 1921." seems to be at two removes to the main topic of the article. Losing both would still, IMO, leave the lead too long long and too off topic, but I could just about go with it on the grounds that every bell curve has have a data point way out on the right. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the branches, but the AE&C to CA&E transition avoids confusion for the history section, when the hitherto-unexplained AE&C is mentioned before the CA&E. If you are so adamant about this lead, I highly suggest, in the spirit of Wikipedia and all my FACs, taking a stab at trimming the lead yourself. I can see what changes I have an urge to revert, and which ones I can tolerate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Be warned. As a TFA coordinator I generate 6 or 8 blurbs each month for the main page; supposedly each a self contained explanation of the FA's topic and with a hard maximum of 1,025 characters including spaces. Let's see what I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. if you were to go with all of my suggestions you would be left with exactly the same word count as if you had gone with my second suggestion above. Although word count isn't really the point. You may also wish to consider running the two initial paragraphs together. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * None of your changes were too offensive – I even trimmed a little extra! I was on the fence about re-including the CA&E being on the Garfield Park tracks rather than having trackage of its own, but I thought it's neither necessary and would have to reintroduce the specific branches. I'll pass on merging the first two paragraphs, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I withdraw any objections to the promotion of this article. I have not done a full review and so do not feel able to formally support, but feel that the lead certainly meets all FAC criteria. John M Wolfson, thank you for approaching this in a thoroughly Wikipedian manner, it is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)