Talk:Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 00:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • New article that was created on 20 October 2022‎ is 2,001 characters and nominated two days later. No copyvios detected. Article is well-sourced. Hook is 95 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Ref 1 (verifying the hook) is a reliable source. QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Canal station (CTA Metropolitan Main Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brachy0008 (talk · contribs) 10:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Dylnuge (talk · contribs)[reply]

Initial review work by User:Brachy0008

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    The prose is clear and concise
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Follows the manual of style guidelines.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    References are presented neatly
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    Most of the sources are book sources
    c. (OR):
    Looks good so far
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    It looks good.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    See below
    b. (focused):
    There are a bit of information that is a bit out of place, but they seem to link to the article. Idk about that tbh.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    So far so good.
    5. Is it stable?
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    So far, so good. No edit warring
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    They are mostly map screenshots
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Status query[edit]

Brachy0008, John M Wolfson, where does this review stand? It has been about a month since the most recent part of the review was posted, and the review isn't yet on hold, nor have any edits been made by the nominator. It would be great to get this moving again. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would need a second opinion. Brachy08 (Talk) 23:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need a second opinion on what, Brachy0008? Or do you just want somebody else to take over the review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need someone to take it over. Brachy08 (Talk) 23:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Hey, I'm Dylnuge and I'll be taking over this review. Let me know if you have any questions or comments for me along the way, and please challenge me on anything that doesn't look right!

@BlueMoonset: And I'm off to a great start and forgot to sign that. This ping should actually work. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: pinging you as the nominator to let you know I'm beginning the review! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review part 2[edit]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'm essentially going to start this from scratch, as I don't think there's enough commentary above for me to easily work off of. I know you've been in a holding pattern for a while here and apologize for that. This is all I have on my plate right now so I feel pretty confident about getting through it quickly. I'll leave notes here as I go; feel free to respond to them and address things as they come up (or to wait until I finish—whichever works best for you). This is also my second GAN review, so please do call me out on any mistakes as you likely know better than me!

Initial read through: no copyvio, article is stable, no obvious and significant issues with any GA criteria. The article is illustrated with maps but no other photographs; is this because there are no images suitable for use? Seems like the article would benefit a lot from a photograph of the historic station but if none exist that's of course fine. Other than that, everything looks good so far! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Leaving notes here in bulleted form as I review; I'll ping when I've finished but feel free to comment here in advance of that.

  • (Optional) I'd move the information about the second entrance that opened in 1914 to earlier in the lead so that the chronology ends with the closing of the station and opening of the Congress Line instead of jumping back.
  • (Optional) Regarding images, I found a site with a photograph of the station "circa 1898": [1]. Assuming the date is accurate I think it's likely public domain; c:Template:PD-old-assumed and/or c:Template:PD-US-unpublished might apply to that image, but I am not a copyright expert. The "Robert D. Heinlen" collection it's sourced to appears to have been a private collection ([2]), and I couldn't find it anywhere else, so unpublished before 2003 seems accurate.
    • @Dylnuge: You're correct that no public-domain photos exist of the station, or even copyrighted ones; all photos I've seen are of trains leaving the Wells Street Terminal from the vantage point of the station. As for the 1898 picture, I'm afraid that was of the Lake Street's station at Canal Street, which is now the Green Line's Clinton station. I'm going to bed now, but will look at your other comments later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alas; had I not been tired myself I might have noticed that the article clearly said this station was at 300S and that photo clearly says Lake Street. Marking 6a and 6b as passes. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is overall excellent. Everything reads clearly and the article is accessible to non-experts. I made very few minor corrections while reading (feel free to double check these).
  • (Optional) I did notice two spots where a turn of phrase stood out for being repeated close by: in the "Union Station and CA&E Service" section, was such that is used in two sentences that are a sentence apart, and in "Operations" both the second and third paragraph end with a sentence that starts Nevertheless. This isn't a GA issue, but I think it might be beneficial to rephrase one of each of those usages to avoid the functional language standing out here.
  • MOS pass: Organization is clear and easy to follow, the lead summarizes the article well, there's no biased or imprecise language, no inappropriate list incorporation.
  • There are a few mentions that the station had significant ridership in the article. I think it'd be nice to provide more detail on ridership and how it changed over time, including some numbers to go with this if the data is available. I wasn't able to find the 1900–1979 traffic report to make a concrete suggestion here, but something along the lines of "The station saw X riders a day passing through in 1914 when the second entrance was opened, which grew to Y passengers in 19YY at the peak of its operation..." etc.
  • It's clear to me that the primary focus in the History section is on events that impacted the Canal station. However, the last two paragraphs before the "Union Station and CA&E service" subsection have pretty in-depth coverage of business changes; I was unable to get my hands on the Moffat source but I wonder if it'd be possible to either tie the individual events back to the station or to summarize them.
  • The Metropolitan boasted of providing... — I assume this language is meant to indicate that the map ad copy is a primary and therefore the claim should be attributed? Might just be me but the word "boasted" reads to me a bit like the claim is more extraordinary than the station having bathrooms and water fountains; I think something like According to The Metropolitan, the station included... might work better here.
  • The station was consequently often used as a gateway to go to the west side from Union Station — Was there a connection between Union Station and the Canal station before the Union Station was rebuilt in 1925 with the walkway? I read this as passengers using Canal as an informal transfer, but wanted to make sure (and maybe it's worth clarifying). Also might be worth saying "(The) Canal station" instead of "The station" in this sentence since two stations are being talked about.

So far everything looks really good! I'm going to do some more in-depth analysis of the sources next, but at the moment I don't see any issues which would prevent this article from reaching GA during this nomination. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional general notes:

  • In "Union Station and CA&E service" section the article mentions that a fire destroyed the station, but the station being rebuilt is only mentioned under "Station details". I'd recommend including a note to that effect in history, ideally including the date the Canal station reopened.

Sourcing spot check:

  • checkY Reliability looks good. A lot of the claims are cited to the book by Moffat or the book by Weller & Stark. The Moffat book was published by the Central Electric Railfans Association, an independent local non-profit; there is editorial oversight and this is not a vanity press. I couldn't find too much about Moffat but he does appear to be a reliable expert on Chicago transit history. The Weller & Stark book was published by "Forum Press" in San Francisco, according to the title page. I was unable to track much down about them: they might be defunct (they're certainly not the contemporary Forum Press in Orange County, and likely not the 1930's era Forum Press in NY, but they may be the same group that published a couple other history books in the '70s and '80s, e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6]). I feel generally comfortable with these sources for the claims made in the article, which do not seem extraordinary or controversial.
  • checkY Smoking was banned by the city across the "L" and in streetcars in response to a 1918 influenza outbreak, a prohibition that has remained in force ever since. — Sourced to the Moffat book. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a copy of the book (NYPL system doesn't have the book and CPL only has it physically but I'm not in Chicago). Facts verified in WTTW ([7]) and CPL ([8]).
  • checkY The Canal station and its surroundings were destroyed by a fire in the early morning of March 15, 1922. The fire, which killed a firefighter, was such that trains were blocked from reaching the Canal station or points beyond for the next several days due to the warping of the tracks. — Date is confirmed, trains being blocked due to warped tracks is confirmed, firefighter death is confirmed. I'm not 100% sure the source merits using the word "destroyed", though it's clear there was significant damage—I see several buildings on both Clinton and Canal listed, including the next door Austin and Atlantic building, that "walls along Canal street were falling continuously", and that "the elevated line suffered a heavy loss". It's quite possible I'm just misreading.
  • Question? The Loop frequently overflowed during rush hours, however, so the Metropolitan soon started terminating some trains at Canal, using stub tracks to turn them back; these trains also benefited west side factory workers, who were not bound for the Loop. — Also cited to Moffat. Other sources I'm looking at verify much of the information about the Loop and I don't see any contradictions ([9], [10]), but I wasn't able to find a second source for trains being redirected to Canal during rush hour. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this claim.
  • checkY CA&E trains were limited to 45 mph (72 km/h) on "L" tracks, although in practice the curves of the main line limited operation to as slow as 12 mph (19 km/h) around Canal. Nevertheless, CA&E took one minute to go from Wells Street to Canal. — Cited to Weller & Stark pp 35 & 37. Verified; all information here can be found on those pages.

Overall I consider this a pass on all aspects of sourcing: all claims in the body are cited to reliable sources, all information in the lead and infoboxes appears in the body, reference format is extremely clear and it is easy to find the specific source or sources used for all claims, claims reflect what is said in reliable sources with no original research.

@John M Wolfson: That's everything I've got. I'm going to mark criteria 3 as on hold for the moment in case it is possible expand the details on ridership, though ultimately if there isn't reliable information on that it won't hold back passing this in full. Let me know if you have any questions about any of the comments I have left; I hope this is helpful overall. Excellent work on this article, it was a pleasure to read and review it! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dylnuge: Ridership has been added. If not an imposition, I'm also looking to bring Marshfield station to FAC and was wondering if you could take a look at it and do any copyedits you find necessary. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ridership section looks great, thanks! I'd be happy to take a look Marshfield station; I probably won't have a chance to get to it today but I should have some time over the weekend. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @John M Wolfson Sorry for my delay in replying here; I wound up having less time this weekend than I anticipated. I did have a chance to read through Marshfield station, which looks to be in incredible shape; I didn't catch any errors.
    As for this article, I think it's ready for listing; none of the outstanding comments should hold it back, and the Ridership section address my only GA-related concern. LMK if there's anything else you want to addres/change here, otherwise, I'm happy to mark this as a pass! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dylnuge: nothing from me, feel free to pass! Thank you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot to mention, with the help of Discord (and especially User:Isochrone) here are a couple more images that may be usable here:
  • [11] — Trains passing on tracks near Canal station. It's CC-BY-NC-ND, unfortunately, but I wonder if the CTA would be willing to relicense it to CC-BY-SA.
  • [12] — Several period-appropriate photos here of the Canal street area. Not sure if any of these are the exact right spot, though.
  • [13] — Another track line image. Circa 1929 without attributed authorship, but may be usable as fair use if it can't be ascertained as PD.
Feel free to use any of these if they work! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits)

Result[edit]

 Passed — All concerns have been addressed and all GA criteria are met. Listing. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canal_station_(CTA_Metropolitan_Main_Line)&oldid=1200169012"