Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Stazione/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:43, 3 April 2011 [1].

La Stazione[edit]

La Stazione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox


Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most comprehensive aggregation of information about this former railroad station ever assembled. For information about the sources, please see New Paltz (village), New York#Newspapers. Some of the citations appear to be incomplete, but the newspapers referred to were originally only three pages per issue, and are now entirely on microfilm. Gyrobo (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PresN[edit]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisfbnore[edit]

  • Support — An illustrated and well-referenced article. Well done. Bw, Eisfbnore talk 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption of one image in the article is a bit ambigous: "The former station after its closure, being renovated in 1988 by Robert Mark Realty". Perhaps a silly question, but was the picture taken by Robert Mark Realty, or did he renovate the station himself? --Eisfbnore talk 16:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I was thinking the same exact same thing. I tweaked the word order slightly, so it shouldn't be a problem.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review

  • Coren's and Earwig's tools found no copyvio, spotcheck of available sources found no close paraphrasing
  • "The prominence of the New Paltz station, as well as the growth of SUNY New Paltz in the village, caused the decline of Springtown as a community" - SUNY is not mentioned by the source cited
  • SUNY New Paltz is the only college in that area. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of newspaper citations with no titles and/or page numbers - why?
  • As I said earlier, the newspapers being cited were only about three pages per issue, no individual authors were attributed, most of the articles were just small, untitled paragraphs, and the fact that the only way to access the material is via microfilm renders all info other than the newspaper name and date pretty much superfluous. I've included titles and authors where they did exist. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some newspaper citations have volume/issue numbers and others do not - why?
  • Some newspaper citations list publishers and locations, while others do not - why?
  • Getting very confused here - are the New Paltz Times, News, Independent, and Independent and Times all iterations of the same paper, or are they different? If the former, what is the chronology? If the later, please include publishers
  • Be consistent in whether weblinks to print-based sources have retrieval dates or not
  • I'm not seeing any inconsistency. Fixed? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location for Wiatrowski?

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, missed your explanation above. However, that doesn't answer the question about volume/issue numbers, publishers, and locations - can you expand on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, it's something that bears repeating. Basically, another editor asked the same thing, so I decided to try to find more data for the sources. The fact that the only copies of the New Paltz newspapers are on microfilm pretty much renders any volume/issue data useless, so I didn't bother including them where I didn't already have them. All of the papers except the modern Times were published in New Paltz, and I've already set the location for all of them. I've also set C.J. Ackert as publisher for the 19th century Times, just to help distinguish it from the modern version, but the paper name and the date are really all that's needed to verify the content; Mabee's 1995 book cites them that way. I could remove the existing volume/issue parameters to make the citations consistent?
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I removed volume/issue information from the few citations that had it. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle[edit]

  • Here is an image copyright review from Stifle.
  • There are three images, all of which are validly PD-tagged. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008[edit]

  • Comment – Just one from me: I believe the second word of the section title 1907 Fire should be decapitalized, unless that happens to be a proper name for the incident. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation of WP:Section caps is that years are numbers and not words and don't count toward a section heading's capitalization. It's tricky because sentences aren't supposed to ever start with numbers, but "Fire in 1907" seems a little forced to me. I don't think the event ever had a proper or common name.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I replaced the wording to avoid starting with a year. It avoids inadvertently naming the event. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added four images to the article. They've been waiting on OTRS (ticket #2010123010016233) for about six weeks, and the library has just sent me explicit approval to place the images (original uploads are TIFs, the images used in the article are JPG derivatives) under CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses. If someone here is an OTRS volunteer, could you please resolve the ticket and update the licenses?
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of, the ticket has been resolved. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Comments. I do copyediting for several wikiprojects, including WP:MILHIST, and people usually prefer that I make the edits rather than asking them to do it ... but let me know please if you'd rather I comment and not edit. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand the purpose of the note in the first sentence. Both "train station" and "train depot" are widely understood in North America and Europe; why define them? - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the GA review, the reviewer was from the UK and apparently the terms are not interchangeable there. I thought it best to just define them and avoid confusion.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not usually how we handle it at FAC; if there's a way to make something intelligible to everyone (and there usually is, with a little creativity), we do that, and if not, then we go with the local lingo, American English in this case. But oxforddictionary.com says station and depot mean the same thing. I can't claim to understand nuances in BritEng, but if American definitions are right and the British definitions are at least close, then we don't need a note. Does anyone object to removing the note (which is just a definition)? We could ditch "depot" if that would be less confusing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think replacing all instances of "depot" with "station" throughout the article would make it very repetitive, and I have never had a strong opinion on the note either way.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The railroad was contractually obligated to be in New Paltz by May 18, 1870": I donnderstand. - Dank (push to talk) 04:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source was pretty vague on this (all it said was that the railroad was required to be in New Paltz on that day), but given what the other ref says about construction starting that day, I assume that's what it means.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I made the edit because it wasn't clear ... but if I've changed it from something unclear to something that's clearly wrong, or not supported, correct it please. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the next ref says that construction was started that day, I think it's safe to assume that's what the source meant.
        --Gyrobo (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about moving "1870" in the lead, that was a mistake. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a paragraph about how the station had been visited by two former presidents. Should the sentence on the station's telegraph being used for election results be moved there? It places it slightly out of chronological order, but it doesn't seem to read as well where it is now.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it doesn't have a lot to do with the paragraph it's in now, I like it better now because it's chronological. It didn't have a lot to do with the paragraph it was in before, so there's no downside. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per standard disclaimer. Caveat: different wikiprojects have different standards for what's interesting and noteworthy, and I'm not going to apply my standards to another wikiproject's article, but some of the information seemed mundane to me. Others say the same about MILHIST articles, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NortyNort[edit]

Comments from NortyNort

  • " It burned down and was not fully rebuilt until 1911." When did it burn down? This adds context to how long it took to rebuild.
  • The source doesn't say when it initially burned down, just that it did at some point. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The building has a 3-foot (0.91 m) bike rack by its northern end." I am sure this is for people using the nearby trail but the sentence just sort of hangs at the end of the paragraph appearing too detailed and IMO insignificant for the article.
  • It's just another detail of the building, like the overhangs, or the bay windows. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get it that it is a detail and you covered the description but this bike rack is out of place. It's three feet, no big deal, and a lot of buildings have bike racks. It could be combined with the first sentence in the paragraph. I struck out the comment below; after an afterthought and your reasoning, I agree.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried moving it up, but that breaks the paragraph up chronologically; the bike rack doesn't predate the creation of the trail. I keep rereading it, and I don't think it's very out of place at the end. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well, then I'll leave it be. If no other editors pick up on it then fine with me.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colombo had previously starred in a 2005 mobster documentary on HBO.", "In January 2011, Panetta signed a lease to open a 76-seat Italian restaurant, Mario's Trattoria, in Kingston by March or April 2011." and "Panetta also owns Rocco's Pizza, which opened around 2007 by the Stop & Shop in New Paltz." seemed too detailed and a little out-of-focus with the article.
  • I think it's important to mention the part about the documentary, so that people aren't wondering whether this man just showed up for that one particular movie, or if he frequently does mob films/shows. And I think it's important to say whether the guy who owns the restaurant owns other restaurants; I can easily picture the following scenario: "Sammy Strawman signed a lease for a new restaurant in Kingston in January 2011. The restaurant was open by April, and by early October, was doing so well that staff at Strawman's other restaurant was cut by half. In February 2012, the faltering restaurant was sold to Oliver Overkill, who tore up the building's floorboards in search of a penny he had dropped at the station as a child, in 1935." --Gyrobo (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the images, there is now seven as opposed to the three mentioned above. All seven have their terms cited and are PD, good on that.
  • Regarding the sources, citations look good and I see nothing I would consider unrelaible.

The comments, particular on the detail are from my own perspective and were of the few times I stopped when reading the article. Other readers may feel differently. Overall, the article flows well. I enjoyed the read, especially being from Westchester.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed and one minor issue aside, I support this article for promotion.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket[edit]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

The lead is short and jarring. It jumps suddenly from what/where it is to "it was robbed". How about something about its design, and some paragraphs? Words like cigar, bike rack and gas tank are linked. "Throughout its history, the Springtown station was occupied by various tenants", throw-away sentence, says nothing. Why is a President's visit and a sewage line installation mentioned in the same paragraph (I understand some presidents may be compared to sewers, but ... ) "The original New Paltz station burned down on April 23, 1907. The fire damaged freight and killed the station agent's dog." What caused the fire? Why can't those sentences be joined somehow (choppy)? Open a bar three times in three sentences. I'd like to see a tighter prose review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I expanded the lead, but I don't think the station's design should be mentioned there, because there really isn't that much written about the architecture, there's no single "architecture" section in the article, and not that much was written about the original station's design.
  • I'm not sure what you're asking me to do about those linked terms.
  • If people live in a train station, I think that's important to mention.
  • The sewage line fits in there chronologically, albeit not thematically, but I think it's preferable to a single sentence paragraph.
  • None of the sources mentioned the cause of the fire.
  • Not sure what you mean by "Open a bar three times in three sentences."
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Wikiproject has a lot of long-time editors; can you leave them a note asking them to come look? I understand you're not getting Sandy's objections, and I wish I could help, but MILHIST is sucking up all my time. If you guys have a copyeditor who's willing to help out with a lot of your FACs and understands most of what Sandy is saying but needs help on the finer points, I'll be happy to walk them through it, but I'm not going to be able to copyedit your articles solo. You guys need a dedicated copy editor who knows something about the preferences of the wikiproject and of FAC reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which editors would be willing to do that? None of the participants list copyediting in their skillset, and every time I've tried to get feedback on the project's talk page, there hasn't been a response. I think I'm a pretty good copyeditor, but I just need more feedback to get a better idea of what reviewers are looking for. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing your writing or copyediting skills. But you didn't follow anything Sandy said; I guess I'm looking for someone who has a fair amount of experience at FAC and will be used to what people are asking for here. I sympathize; if the people won't come, they won't come. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic C62[edit]

Comments from Cryptic C62. Some of these are my own comments, some are elaborations on the points that Sandy brought up:

  • The links that SandyGeorgia pointed out are examples of WP:Overlinking. Such obvious terms shouldn't be wikilinked unless they're particularly relevant to the subject (which, in this case, they're not).
  • "Open a bar three times in three sentences." refers to this chunk of text: Fetner and Gold Associates ... attempted to open the building as a bar... the board believed that opening the building as a bar would lead to complaints from nearby apartments. It was also believed that it would be unsafe to open a bar adjacent to an active rail line" [Emphasis added]. This phrasing is very repetitive, which can detract from reading comprehension.
  • Changed wording to avoid repetition. I thought she was referring to a broken template that had an extra bar in it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and served as the setting for a scene in a 2008 mob film." What was the name of this film?
  • The film is named in the text, but it doesn't have its own article, so I don't really think it would help readers by getting so specific in the lead. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February 1864, plans were underway to extend the proposed Wallkill Valley Railroad" This does not seem logical. "proposed" implies that the railroad was not yet existence, and yet there were already plans to extend it... how exactly does one extend an object that does not exist?
  • The railroad was at that time proposed, but not built yet. The plans extended the hypothetical route. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, in that case, I think it would be helpful to employ the word "route" just as you've done here. How about "In February 1864, plans were underway to extend the route for the proposed Wallkill Valley Railroad" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The western route was roughly 100 feet (30 m) shorter, and the eastern route would cost $25,000 more." Was the increased cost of the eastern route simply because it was 100 feet longer, or was there some additional reason?
  • The sources don't really give reasons for the increased cost, they just mention the western route being shorter. I personally assume the increased cost had something to do with the placement of the bridge over the Wallkill; if they'd crossed where the river was narrower to the south, it would have been shorter, and therefore cheaper. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current name of the station is not mentioned until the final subsection of History. I strongly suggest mentioning it earlier, perhaps with a phrasing like "that would later become La Stazione" or "now referred to as La Stazione".
  • I thought about that earlier, but just naming the article "La Stazione" triggered intimations that I was somehow promoting the restaurant. I changed the wording of the lead slightly to reflect the name and avoid historical anachronisms, how does it look? --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Cryptic's tone in this edit summary is completely inappropriate, and I have reverted part of it per my reasoning above. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey mate, sorry if you took offense to the edit summary. It wasn't intended to insult you, it was intended to poke fun of the tendency for contributors (including myself) to sit around discussing trivial details instead of simply editing the article. In any case, Sandy said that the lead is too short and jarring, and both Truthkeeper and I have now requested that the name of the film be included in the lead. While you may believe that mentioning it would be too specific, I would argue that not mentioning the name just leaves the reader dissatisfied and will cause him/her/it to dig through the article trying to find the name of the movie. WP:LEAD explicitly forbids this: "the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also apologize for assuming bad faith on a humorous edit summary, but you never mentioned redlinking the term, and I took your comment to mean that I wasn't fulfilling my obligation as a nominator regarding an issue you never brought up. Sorry for the confusion there. I'd like to point out, though, that the lead was greatly expanded since Sandy made that comment, and that while I support redlinking the movie in the body, the lead should just be a concise overview of the topic, rather than a thorough retelling. Adding the movie title is something I think is too specific for the lead, and that reader understanding isn't hurt by its exclusion. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, mate. The inclusion/exclusion of the name isn't a big deal, and in any case I'm not opposing the nomination, so... yeah. I like bagels. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88[edit]

'Leaning oppose' Neutral- just starting to have a look at this. First, please add non-breaking spaces where necessary per WP:MOS. I think the lead needs to be reorganized with the last sentence moved all the way up to become the second or so sentence so the reader knows immediately why the station is notable. Suggest some link work - currently states that two presidents used the train station but is linked to President of the United States with an image of Barack Obama. Put the names of the presidents in the lead. The link to mob film doesn't do much - go ahead and mention the names of the films in the lead. The second paragraph is choppy - it tells us the station was robbed and then that the station was used by many vacationers (including presidents) without any sort of transition between the sentences. "Late 19th century" needs a hyphen. Why did passenger service cease? A phrase or so would suffice in the lead - I'm presuming it's been explained in the body of the article. Will try to return. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done, added   entities throughout the article. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworked the lead.
  • As I said in response to Cryptic, I think getting overly specific in the lead is undesirable. The movie has no article of its own, and its plot isn't described in the article. The fact that a movie was filmed there in the first place is what I'd consider important. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "19th century" only needs to be hyphenated "19th-century" when being used as an adjective. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added cause of discontinuation of passenger service (it was cars). --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Per above, I'd hyphenate late-19th but leave it to you

  • "plans were underway" is bulky, passive, and they aren't literally underway
  • "civil engineering survey ... was undertaken" same as above
  • "it was felt" > another passive construction, and raises the question by whom?
  • add non-breaking spaces for the ellipses per WP:ELLIPSIS

These are only a few examples from the first section. I'd suggest an independent copyeditor work on the prose, and you work to integrate some of the choppiness. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source just says that it was a common belief. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added   entities to the ellipses, but I think the addition of those entities throughout the entire article is really overkill. Having them in dates is advisory, not mandatory; for ellipses, non-creaking entities are recommended "only as needed". I think their inclusion here makes it harder to visually parse the source code, without really improving the article. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know this area, so I'm confused why the opening of stations in Gardiner and then Forest Glen influenced the building of the station written about in this article. A background section might not be a bad idea. The section explaining the Gardiner & Forest Glen stations then moves to telling us the railroad was contractually obligated to start construction in New Paltz, but again, I'm confused, probably because I don't know the geography. Are these adjacent towns? Another question, was there a specific rail line involved? If so, what happened to the rail line? Was this an expansion of track and to bring rail traffic to a specific region? I'm still in the first section, but have read most of the article. At this point, aside from some choppiness in the prose, I think some of the problems may be structural. As for the non-breaking spaces - I like them because you never know what kind of a device is being used to read the page, so although it may seem as though the ellipses occur mid-line, they might not on another device, and beginning a new line of text with an ellipsis is confusing to readers. These are just suggestions, of course. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a really good point about location, I've added a map of the WVRR corridor. I'm kicking myself over not including it earlier, all the other WVRR-related articles have it and it provides a critical geographical context. Please let me know how the article reads now. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding a specific rail line, the article makes clear in both the lead and first paragraph that the rail line is the Wallkill Valley Railroad. Throughout the article, the cessation of passenger service, and the ultimate closure of the line, is mentioned. I just didn't want to bring that up in the lead, because this article is about the building, not the railroad. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, I am more than familiar with developing web pages across multiple screen resolutions, and I completely see where you're coming from; it's just that I can easily see an IP coming by and adding a date to the article without even knowing about non-breaking characters, rendering the whole scheme inconsistent. It's kind of a no-win situation, but the non-breaking route is definitely the lesser of two evils. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88 cont ... Here's a sample list of problems I see:

  • Despite the fact the rail line is mentioned in the lead and in the first section, as a reader I'd like to know how the rail line was involved in the plans for building this station.
  • Neither the book nor any of the newspapers give more information than what is already in the article; an office fire in the 1880s destroyed many of the railroad's early documents, so the exact financial details of the station's construction may never be known. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the fact that Gardiner is south of New Paltz, and that the railroad was the first in Ulster County. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some examples of choppiness:
  • how does the fact that the lumber came from Pennsylvania tie in with the names of the contractor, carpenter and painter?
  • It ties in because it's part of the building's construction. It's a fact that can't really be elaborated any further on. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand that, but it should be integrated for flow
  • I just reread the paragraph in question. Apparently, another editor had changed the order of the wording a month ago and made it weaker; I believe the problem with flow is now fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • a sentence describes the inaugural run of the train and the next sentence tells us during that decade the telegraph was used for election returns - again, how do these tie together? Was the telegraph used for anything else?
  • No further uses are mentioned, I just included it there because that's where it occurs chronologically. There just happen to be small facts and occurrences that can't be elaborated on and give the illusion of choppiness, when really they represent completeness. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the telegraph be intergrated somehow? Something like "the new station included a telegraph that was used at such and such time for election returns"
  • If I did that, it wouldn't really work out chronologically. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the long paragraph about the robbery goes a bit off focus compared to the rest of the article, discussing the robbery, the arrest, the visit to the barbershop, etc. I'd rather see more detail about the reasons for building the station, the demographics of the time, some background about the use of rail travel in rural America. I had to look up where this is - didn't even know it was in the Hudson Valley area.
  • The items you're suggesting are really off topic here. The robbery directly involved the station; rail travel in rural America is far beyond the scope of this article. The lead clearly describes where the station is located, and I've provided a route map for geographical context. And the reasons for constructing the station at its location are very clearly discussed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's truly not clear to a person not from the area that it's in the Hudson Valley.
  • I don't think it's necessary for every article related to the Hudson Valley to explicitly say that the subject is in the Hudson Valley. The article doesn't currently say that the station is in the United States; it's just a level of scope. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that Mohonk Mountain House is linked, but I have to stop mid-sentence and link out of this article to see why it's important that sheds were build for horses for runs to the Mohonk. In this case more detail would be useful.
  • I changed one of the sentences to indicate that it's a resort. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1884 President Arthur was not a former president. The sentence needs to be recast.
  • I think the sentence was already clear, but I've changed it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think President needs to be linked here - linking in to Arthur will tell us he was a president. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big jump from the building of the Springtown station to it having tenants in 1911. Again, difficult to follow.
  • Again, I've included only the information provided by the sources. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a transition or something to make the jump from the building of the station to the tenants in 1911. Also, I'm assuming tenants are shops or something like that, correct? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified that the tenants were residential, and moved that to the preceding paragraph. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*a few occurrences of "due to" should be replaced with "because of"

  • There are two instances of that, one of which is due to your earlier comments. I've changed one of those instances. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • automobiles are not dominant. The sentence needs to be recast. This point is of sufficient importance that I think much more detail is necessary, which probably would require more research
  • There doesn't need to be more research; the source clearly says that the rise in automobile use caused the railroad to fail. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*I was thinking something along the lines of explaining that roads and cars supplanted rail travel in the area. Also, don't think automobile needs to be linked. Truthkeeper88 (talk)
  • That's already what the text says; I think automobile needs to be linked because the context of modes of transportation, and someone may want to learn more about the history of cars. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The automobile article doesn't do much to explain the change in modes of travel in the Hudson valley, but I'll strike anyway

*1977 freight services ended, but when did passenger service end? I may have missed it....

  • Passenger service ended in 1937, it is mentioned. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Conrail come to own the tracks. When did they buy the line from the Walkill Valley Line?
  • That happened after the station was no longer part of the rail line, so I didn't think it was important to mention because this article is about the station. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the permit .... required ... " passive construction again. Next sentence too
  • I don't see any problems with this wording. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this edit and reversion, if you don't like the repetition, perhaps combining the sentences would work. I still think it's a good idea for you to have an independent copyedit, will reiterate that below. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will look at this again, but think the sentence can be improved if you don't use 'permit' as the subject. Okay, looked at it again - in my mind the problem with the sentence is that trail is the last word - but it's probably the most important because it sets up for the bike rack later on . Somehow it needs to be recast so it's more active with less emphasis on permit, because otherwise the reader is confused. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I rephrase this sentence to remove the permit as the subject, it becomes passive. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did they have to remove the gas tank and gas line? What does that have to do with the bike rack?
  • The sentence reads, "...the restaurant was forced to remove a gas tank and gas line that were placed under the trail, or risk losing its certificate of occupancy." The part about the bike rack fits in at that point chronologically. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an issue of context - just needs some clarification, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • What's the connection between the water drainage problems, the fixing of those problems, and the burning of the Gardiner station that made this station the last to remain. Actually the fact that it is the last of a string of stations does make it notable, but it's so buried, it's very hard to find. I'd lead with that fact.
  • Again, I'm trying to keep the text in chronological order while avoiding tiny paragraphs.
  • What does Panetta's restaurant in Kingston have to do with this article? What does Panetta's pizza shop near the grocery store have to do with this article. This could be tightened to say that he owns multiple restaurants.
  • NortyNort asked the same thing, and I'll reply with the same text:
    I think it's important to mention the part about the documentary, so that people aren't wondering whether this man just showed up for that one particular movie, or if he frequently does mob films/shows. And I think it's important to say whether the guy who owns the restaurant owns other restaurants; I can easily picture the following scenario: "Sammy Strawman signed a lease for a new restaurant in Kingston in January 2011. The restaurant was open by April, and by early October, was doing so well that staff at Strawman's other restaurant was cut by half. In February 2012, the faltering restaurant was sold to Oliver Overkill, who tore up the building's floorboards in search of a penny he had dropped at the station as a child, in 1935."
    --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I do think the film should be mentioned and I do think it should be redlinked. I also think much of this is fairly easily fixable with a bit more research, some reorganizing and then some prose work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that the film shouldn't be redlinked in the body, I just feel that it's title is immaterial for a concise summary, and I took issue with Cryptic's uncivil edit summary. I don't know how much more research you think should be done here, I've spent a great deal of time reading through literally all newspaper articles and books ever written on this station. There isn't any more I can add without original research. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding another comment: this statement: "The West Shore Railroad purchased the Wallkill Valley line in June 1881,[35] and placed an additional siding by the depot in 1887 to allow daily "special extra-fare trains ... for the Minnewaska and Mohonk visitors".[36]" should be integrated with the building of the sheds earlier, if the shed building was a result of the West Shore Railroad purchase - again, I'm confused. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about the sheds explicitly says that they were built by the co-founder of the Mohonk Mountain House for his horses. The railroad was uninvolved. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not explicit to this reader that the railroad was not involved and there's a fair amount of purchasing going on in that para, but I've tweaked it a bit to clarify. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources do not say that the land was purchased from the railroad. As far as the sources are concerned, the sheds were adjacent to the depot, and unrelated to the railroad except for the fact that they were next to it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is choppy because, in some cases, proper context has been left out. Only an independent copyeditor - an editor who has never read the article and brings fresh eyes to it - can identify the places where a reader is potentially confused. I have read over this article a couple of times but still am confused in places. Don't take it as a criticism of the prose so much as a suggestion to improve the page by adding context where it needs to be added for those readers, such as myself, who are stupid. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: I agree with SilkTort's concern re the terminology. I am American and think of a rail station as a place where a train stops for passengers with a depot being a place for freight or for storage of rail cars, etc. The station should be called a station, but that brings up another issue - this station must have had a name. Trains stop at specifically named stations. Presumably it was the New Paltz station, but am not sure that's made clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources refer to it consistently as both a depot and a station, and at no point prior to it becoming La Stazione was any name given for the structure. I strongly believe the article should reflect the historic nature of the sources and subject, and that assigning it an arbitrary name not specified in any source would be original research. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This source calls it the old New Paltz station. Also explains that hikers stop there - which is not clear in our article. Anyway, train stations do have names - the conductor calls out the name of the stop, the stop is noted in rail maps, and so on, so it must have had a name before it became an Italian restaurant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source makes it sound as if the restaurant operates out of a railroad station that just happens to be in New Paltz; it doesn't seem to use any official name other than the one it currently has. Absolutely none of the sources give a specific name for the depot, it's always just "the train station/depot in New Paltz", the "New Paltz station/depot", or just "the station/depot". And the article reflects this terminology. The atlas image from 1875 labels it "depot", while the railroad map from 1899 calls it "New Paltz". I see no official or common name. Regarding the hikers, I'm being told via edit summaries that including the fact that La Stazione's owner also owns two other restaurants is in itself seen by some as promotional; adding that info would probably bring on more assertions of promoting the place, and I don't think it's important to mention hikers in particular, as many kinds of people eat there. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the point that I've been trying to make is that some of the apparent inconsistencies causes confusion for a reader who doesn't know the subject. At any rate, I think I've done all I can here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting this change, and I just wanted to explain why. The source says that both terms were interchangeable. If it's further mentioned that "depot" referred to smaller structures while "station" referred to larger ones, that just confuses readers about which term is more apt here. The sources use both "depot" and "station", without making any distinction. The change also excludes how freight affects the name of the structure, which would also increase confusion. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm[edit]

Comments for the time being. This is from my Talk Page:

  • I reverted some of the changes you made to La Stazione, and I just wanted to explain why I did.
  • "The station was burned down..." implies that it was intentional.
  • "The building was neglected..." implies that there was a single owner who allowed the station to become unusable.
  • "...threatened by demolision..." the sources describe it as just a possibility.

Thanks for reviewing this, I really think your changes addressed the issues other reviewers brought up. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about my typo ("demolision"). I tried to correct it but had an edit conflict with you. I haven't read the others' reviews yet—I try not to—but my first impression is that the prose lacks flow. I offered my edits as "suggestions" because I don't know anything about the subject, but your responses to the changes that I offered might highlight parts of the text that need of clarification. I will copy this conversation to the FAC discussion so other reviewers are aware of it. I will offer a full review later. PS. I notice that you have included some of my humble suggestions. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will finish my review later, but my first impressions are that the article needs a little more polishing to maintain flow—it's a bit clunky at the moment— but the nominator is polite and accommodating. There is just a little more fine-tuning needed IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issues brought up by the other reviewers, and that I think you're driving at, is that some of the text appears "choppy"; i.e., a sentence will appear that is unconnected thematically with the rest of a paragraph. The reason for these occurrences is, they fit in at that point chronologically, but the sources lacked enough information to expand them further. I felt my only choices in those instances were to leave the information out (not desirable, because it sacrifices comprehensiveness), or blending it with a nearby paragraph to avoid numerous one-sentence paragraphs. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut[edit]

  • 'Comments
  • The closure section doesn't say when it was closed. It also includes a paragraph during which it is open for various uses. The latter might be OK if a nice transition were added.• Ling.Nut (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure section says that it stopped being used as a station in 1958, and was sold off the following year. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should this text be in the article; "...had previously managed construction for an adjacent restaurant, the Gilded Otter"? Why do we need to know about Wilro Builders, or Matt Bialecki?
  • The part about the Gilded Otter gives context to who the person is. Wilro and Bialecki are about as relevant as the original contractor in 1870, I see no reason not to mention them; and the fact that Bialecki was the architect behind the renovation of another historic building is worth mentioning. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why provide context for the person if we don't really need to mention the person in the first place? ... I'm reading from the bottom up. If the original cast and crew of the construction of the station are all listed in detail... why should they be in the article? Are they notable?• Ling.Nut (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me, but how can you tell if the article makes logical sense if you begin reading it at the end? And I fail to see why that information should not be included, it's part of the station's history and gives context to the people involved. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked two questions: First, I know it sounds strange. Any reviewers who may have come before me often get fatigued midway through an article; I occasionally find glaring errors in the later sections of longer articles. Moreover, although I'm not trying to see if it makes perfect sense when I read from top to bottom, it's actually true that they should "almost" make sense. If I hit a puzzling patch, I either mentally note it, or else I skip around the article to see if it is explained elsewhere. Finally, I do of course read top-to-bottom after I've read bottom-to-top. Second question: Not everyone who is involved is worth noting! Does the article on Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope have an exhaustive list of the make-up artists involved? You see my point... This article is shorter and thus has more leeway, but still, even in shorter articles there is a line between inclusiveness and WP:TRIVIA...• Ling.Nut (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's a fair comparison. Listing people who were tangentially involved in making a film is not equivalent to mentioning that a train station was renovated by someone who had previously renovated another historic building in the same town, or that the building's owner had previously helped build an adjacent restaurant. There were likely dozens of individuals involved in the construction of the structure, but only a single contractor is mentioned. Removing all this information removes context and comprehensiveness, and would make it harder to see connections and locate relevant data when future articles about other buildings are written. WP:TRIVIA explicitly says that it's not a guideline on inclusion, only that trivia should be integrated into the prose when that's clearly beneficial. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should La Stazione be italicized throughout? • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my practice to italicize it on its first mention. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I've removed the instances where it is italicized. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article needs work. It is a little too good to firmly Oppose, but not quite good enough to firmly Support. I suppose you can label me Neutral (whatever that means). The world wouldn't end if it were promoted, but I would think the best thing would be to go back for more copy editing. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork[edit]

  • I've re-added the note about "station" and "depot" being interchangeable in North America. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is such usage currently "interchangeable" or is depot slang usage? See [2] - note: "Usage: In the United States, a stopping place on a railway for passengers and freight is commonly called a depot: but to a considerable extent in official use, and in common speech, the more appropriate name, station, has been adopted. [1913 Webster]" When I look at current American dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, the primary use of depot is "storage facility" - [3]. If the primary use in both US and British usage is "storage facility", and that its use as "station" in the USA is considered inappropriate, while its use in the UK as regards railways can be misleading if someone doesn't immediately read the footnote, wouldn't it be more accommodating to readers in general to use station throughout? There are featured articles on stations which don't using depot. Some other items that have caught my attention: 1) What was the name of the place before it was called La Stazione? 2) Was it also a goods station because it says that passenger services stopped in 1937, though the station itself didn't close until 1958 - could that be made clearer. 3) Why is there a section on Springtown station? 4) And why is Springtown station not mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead? 5) There is a tendency toward short sentences which gives a choppy, awkward feel to the article. SilkTork *YES! 21:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the use of "depot" fits in with the historical context of the article, and prevents every sentence from being "The station..." The only FAs on railroad stations are on UK stations, so it's not really fair to compare this to those in terms of terminology. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building had no name before it became La Stazione. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that freight service continued on the rail line until 1977. That's mentioned in the same section. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Springtown station is included because it's the only other station in New Paltz and its decline was caused by the first station. I can think of no other article where it would be appropriate. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really can't help the occasional choppiness, most of the sources were one-paragraph blurbs. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Gyrobo to come here to give support - or at least to clarify my views. I did not intend to either support or oppose this for FA as I am not taking on any reviews at the moment, as I don't have time for the level of reading and research required. I was on the FAC page for some other reason, saw the discussion about "depot" and "station", and gave some input on what depot means in the UK. I returned out of curiosity, and while glancing at the article had a couple of observations.

As regards the name - the postcard gives the place the name "Wallkill Valley R.R. Depot, New Paltz" - some sources refer to a New Paltz PO and railway station - but this may be the Springtown station. There is no mention of freight in the lead, which is where I read about the line closures. If I am being asked to give a view, I would incline to oppose as I feel the article doesn't provide enough information about the topic. It raises questions which it cannot answer, and when a reader starts looking elsewhere for information I would feel that the article needs more development. If I was doing a GA review on this I would want more information in order to comply with "broad coverage", and the FA requirements of "comprehensive" are even more demanding. And I would want the lead built up per WP:Lead, and the prose quality improved. As for not being able to deal with the choppy prose, there are others who will do a copyedit of you ask - try WP:COPYEDITORS. Good luck! SilkTork *YES! 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this a few times, but in a nutshell, the information included in this article is all the information that was available. It contains references to all newspaper articles, all books, and all web pages related to this subject. None of the sources describe the kind of freight the station handled, nor did it have a single common or official name before it became a restaurant. In addition, I believe I may have come off as saying that I personally couldn't improve the article's prose. I think I should clarify this: some of the sources I found were one-sentence paragraphs that were completely unrelated to each other, but took place almost concurrently. Hence, you have a blurb about a sewage line in the same paragraph as summer vacationers. This may be odd, but there is no further information that would enable this content to be rendered in a more free-flowing manner. If the article raises questions it can't answer, that's because no published source can answer it. I'm sorry. Regarding the lead, I believe it to be an accurate, and concise, summary of the body content, that manages to avoid getting overly specific and retelling the entire article. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over Listen to the Whistle, and only one station (at Forest Glen) was explicitly said to double as a post office. I think the sources at the link you have there are referring to the New Paltz rail station AND the New Paltz post office, as two separate entities. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This might help clarify. See page 25. Apparently they were telegraph offices according to Wiatroski, p. 152. Sorry, butting in again .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Station1[edit]

Moved from User talk:Station1#La Stazione

I undid the change you made to La Stazione, because I don't know if you saw the reason I gave for that content's inclusion on the FAC:

In short, this information adds context to the building as a restaurant, and to the restaurant's owner. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did see it - you mentioned it in your edit summary. I strongly disagree, though, that other restaurants should be named in the article just because they happen to be owned by the same person. This is extremely tangential to the topic and, more importantly, sounds like an ad - although I realize that's not your intention. You seem to be saying in your scenario that it's possible these other restaurants might somehow affect this one in the future, but that's pure conjecture, and it certainly isn't clear from reading the sentence in the article that that's even what you're trying to get at. It's clear you've done a lot of research, and overall this is a very nice article, but that paragraph should come out. Station1 (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to businesses, I've noticed a tendency among editors to err on the side of "it's probably advertising", but simply mentioning that these restaurants exist is not promotional. I could see it if this information was inserted into the articles for the involved towns, such as "New Paltz is a great town, and you can eat at this restaurant!" But it is appropriate in this context; the owner of La Stazione also owns two other restaurants. This is directly related to the subject, and I can't find anything in WP:SPAM to preclude the inclusion of this content. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree. You're doing more than mentioning they exist; you're giving names and locations and type of food and dates of opening. The fact that the building's owner also happens to own other specifically named restaurants - one in another town and one that sounds like it might be a pizza parlor in a strip mall - tells me about the owner but absolutely nothing about the topic of the article, the building. If it's important to know that the owner "also owns two other restaurants", just insert ", who owns two other restaurants," after his name. But giving their names and locations is totally unnnecessary. As others have pointed out, the article's title and wording of the lead already give it a slightly promotional tinge. You've done a good job in not giving the restaurant undue weight in the body, but I think it's especially important in a case like this not to push it too close to the edge by writing anything that has the appearance of being promotional, especially when it's so unnecessary. And again, I don't doubt your good intentions, but more than one editor has questioned the promotional tone. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not given the types of foods served. The name of the place is Rocco's Pizza. And mentioning the locations of these buildings is indeed relevant: we know the location of the first restaurant (the subject of the article), so wouldn't it be of interest if the owner opened another restaurant in the same town? I understand that you're not impugning me personally, but from my perspective you're proposing a solution in search of a problem – removing content that's written in a neutral manner, and related to the subject, purely because it may be viewed by some people as promotional. Also, should this whole conversation be moved to the FAC? --Gyrobo (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not purely because it sounds promotional, but coupled with the fact that I do think it's largely irrelevant. Even if town location were relevant, names wouldn't be, nor that it's near Stop and Shop. If you wish to move this to FAC, I have no objection; other's opinions might be helpful. Station1 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already removed that part. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in: as I brought this up at FAC, and Ling.Nut has as well, I think this conversation should take place there so we can all be on the same page - literally. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UpstateNYer[edit]

I'm making edits as I go through; hopefully that doesn't bother you. I do have a couple things you should look at.

  • First is that this station is known as "Lat Stazione" today, but did it have a formal name when it was a station? My concern comes up in the first sentence of section Springtown station, where you say, "As soon as the station in the village was completed, a second station was built at Springtown...". I'd rather it said something along the lines of "This station was completed..." because it's not obvious you mean this station. However it would be much less clunky if there were a former formal name to use (e.g. "As soon as New Paltz station #1 was completed, a second..."). I guess it's picky and I don't have a solution, but I'm just throwing it out there.
    • I added the title from the postcard as a former name. You may want to go with that when referring to the station throughout the article; referring to "La Stazione" isn't appropriate, really, until you get into the late 1990s.
  • The problem is that that name is just one of many ways the station was referred to. The name in the postcard was chosen by the printer, S. Deyo & Son. The sources call it the New Paltz station/depot, the station/depot in New Paltz, the railway depot/station, etc. There was never a single, common name for the place until it because a restaurant, and I think the article reflects this. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Sylvester's full citation in the bibliography station doesn't work from Ref #40; not sure if there are other refs like that that don't work.
  • Fixed. The |ref=harv parameter wasn't set for Sylvester. I'll have to check that on other pages. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of including the Springtown station section?
  • It's the only other station in New Paltz, and its decline as a destination was caused, at least in part, by the emphasis the rail line placed on the station in the village. And given the early contention over having the village station east of the river, it's probably of interest that the railroad indeed placed a station on the west bank. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the importance of having to remove the gas line? Why were they forced to do it? Was it a public threat in some way?
  • The sources didn't make it seem as though it was an imminent threat, just a zoning violation or some other infraction that could potentially be a threat. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with comments above that "Panetta opened a second restaurant in New Paltz, Rocco's Pizza, around 2007." should just be removed.
  • I agree with comments above that "In January 2011, Panetta signed a lease to open another Italian restaurant, Mario's Trattoria, in Kingston by March or April 2011." It's irrelevant; I don't really care about the owner or the owner's other endeavors. Just my opinion and no offense meant of course.
  • Removed both sentences, per WP:SNOW. I personally think it adds context to the restaurant's owner by letting readers know that he owns other restaurants, but at this point consensus clearly doesn't support that view. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have more as I continue this review. Nice job though; a lot of info for a building that's not on the NRHP (PS, why isn't it? Maybe you should nominate it). upstateNYer 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Well done. I like the article and am still impressed you found so much info on a non NRHP-identified building (even if it is in a NHD). And great illustrations. Love the fact you could get a photo released by the library from 1988 and 2003. That's a big deal. upstateNYer 01:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The library would have been more than willing to release their entire collection if noncommercial licenses were an option. I'm not sure what effect my request has had on their longstanding policies, but I'm hoping that it'll be easier to get more historic photos for articles in the future; New Paltz has one of the largest collections in Ulster County. The next time I'm at the library, I'm going to definitely ask about nominating this for the NRHP. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/La_Stazione/archive1&oldid=1138465476"