Talk:Norwood Central station/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 16:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will have this done by the end of the weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I did not have this done by the end of the weekend. Real life got in the way, I apologize. But I'll get this done as soon as I can. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A few minor concerns were brought up and resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
No remaining issues in this area. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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:
References format is fine. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Citations include contemporary newspapers, specialist publications, and publications from official sources like the MBTA itself. All are reliable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
I see no instances of original research within this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No issues in this area, copyright check came back clean. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
There's a fairly thorough history of this station here. My one concern in this area was addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Article follows summary style consistently throughout. I have no concerns in this area. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I do not see any issues with neutrality in this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No concerns here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All images are either public domain or otherwise appropriately licensed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
No issues in this area. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I have passed this article, congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The MBTA gradually increased service on the Franklin Line." Can you elaborate a bit on this? What was the service frequency initially, and how much was it increased by? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

More to come soon.

"Freight service on the line lasted for several more decades; it was gradually abandoned, except for about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) between Norwood and East Walpole, which remains in service as the East Walpole Industrial Track." Who is the freight service provider? CSX?
- Done
"The shops opened in 1876. They were expanded in 1889 for additional use as a locomotive shop." Consider combining these sentences.
- Done
"a local business association appeared before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court seeking the railroad to comply with the 1891 order and build a combined station." I'm not sure precisely what it is with this part of the sentence, but the "seeking the railroad to comply" part appears to be improper grammar to me.
- Done Reworded.
"The former car shop buildings, closed in 1907, were used by the American Brake Shore and Foundry Company." Suggest changing this sentence to "...were subsequently used..."
- Done
This is a very minor complaint, but in some of the places where a sentence has more than one reference, some of the refs are out of order, could you adjust their order so they are all from lowest to highest number?
- Done
"Norwood Central short turns decreased by nine daily in 1898 to four in 1906" Should "by" instead be "from"?
- Done
"The newly formed Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) began subsidizing suburban commuter rail service on the Franklin Branch on April 24, 1966." Is it worth adding a sentence about the New Haven's bankruptcy and troubles from 1961 onwards as background before this sentence? Right now the arrival of MBTA subsidies appears to come out of nowhere to a reader with no background knowledge of the New Haven's history.
- Done I didn't mention the bankruptcy specifically, but did provide context.
"and determined that it was eligible for addition to the National Register of Historic Places." Was the station building added to the NRHP, or was the extent of this simply that it was identified as eligible?
- Just eligible, not added as of yet.
"However, the railroad objected to bearing 65% of the costs as laid out in an 1890 state law, and challenged the law in court." Who was paying the remainder of the cost? The town? The state of Massachusetts?
- Done Added a sentence earlier to clarify.

That's all I have for now, this article is close to GA status. I will give it one more readthrough after these are addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick readthrough and I don't see anything else that needs to be changed, so I'll promote this to GA now! Congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]