Talk:Kendal Green station/GA1

GA review

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

Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I can take this one!

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

1a:

• "Weston station originally opened with the Fitchburg Railroad in 1844; it was renamed Kendal Green after the green cloth around 1886." took me a two passes to understand with the introduction of "Weston station"; it could read more clearly as something like, "The station, opened under the name Weston (station) with the Fitchburg Railroad in 1844, was renamed Kendal Green after the green cloth around 1886."
  •  Done
• In general, if you could take a pass to clarify uses of the word "station" throughout, that would improve the clarity of the prose. The structure in the infobox image is the old station building that's now a private residence, right? So at this point, the "station" is essentially just the platform and bench and general vicinity where trains stop? I'm looking specifically at "The railroad built a new station at Kendal Green in 1896." which feels like it implies the station is only the building, but the station (which no longer really includes the building) still exists. Does that make sense?
  •  Done I clarified that; I can't find any other places to fix.

1b:

• Words to watch, lists, fiction, and layout are all good. The infobox in the lead has a few items that should also be included in the body somewhere: the fare zone (3), that parking spaces are free, and 2018 number of passengers.
  • There's been a lot of back-and-forth about what information to include in station articles to set a balance of including enough information without becoming a travel guide. The general result has been that certain information (parking fees and often # of spaces, fare zone, ridership, and adjacent stations) appears in the infobox but isn't worth noting in the prose unless there's something unusual about it. (See nearby Hastings station for an example where ridership is relevant.) I think the current situation is best, but I'm willing to reconsider if you have strong feelings about it.
• 2a: Looks good!
• 2b: Looks good!
• 2c: Looks good!
• 2d: Looks good!
• 3a and 3b: No concerns!
• 4: Cannot imagine this being a controversial topic anyway but the article treats the station fairly.
• 5: No changes since nominator's expansion; overall very slow and stable.
• 6a: File:Kendall Green station and level crossing, August 2015.JPG is CC-BY-SA 3.0 on Commons by nominator. File:Kendal Green station 1913 postcard.jpg is PD-US-expired with documentation verifying it as such on Commons.
• 6b: Could the caption on the infobox image explain that the pictured structure is the private residence mentioned by the article?
  • Try as I might, I can't find a good way to word this without going onto two or more lines. As with 1b, I don't think the current state is a problem, but am willing to reconsider.

Love articles about rinkydink stations! This one's in really good condition and nearly ready to be passed. I'm going to do a quick pass to tidy a few things. Putting this on hold for seven days but let me know if you need more time. Thanks Pi.1415926535! Kindly —Collin^{t c} 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've replied to your comments above. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick work on this! I feel like you've addressed the comments adequately and the article is in good shape. Happy to pass it! —Collin^{t c} 20:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)