Talk:Lake Geneva station

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lake Geneva station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 16:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Will get to this shortly. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 16:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• That was a fun read; thanks! Overall a great article, though I have left a few comments below. I will put this on hold for one week, but I really doubt that we will need that long. I must also disclaim that I do not speak American English so let me know if I have made any erroneous comments. P.S., thanks for the ALT text! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 17:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @LunaEatsTuna: Thanks for the review! I've replied to your comments below. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Nice work! I am now pleased to pass this article for GA status per the changes implemented. Congrats! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 21:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go.

Files

I wish both images used were of higher quality, but alas Wikipedia must obey by copyright laws and make do with what we have:

• File:Lake Geneva station (2), August 27, 2001.jpg okay, valid reuse rationale;
• File:Lake Geneva station (1), August 27, 2001.jpg okay, valid reuse rationale.

Prose

• The line parameter of the infobox has 'Wisconsin and Southern Railroad Fox Lake Subdivision' whilst this is not mentioned elsewhere in the article's prose. This is acceptable, as it is also the only referenced parameter, but is there a reason why this is not mentioned somewhere?
  •  Done Added to article.
• For the last sentence in the opening paragraph of Amtrak, the parentheses are not necessary; the text should be fine without them.
  •  Done
• "doubled ridership on the Lake Country Limited – from 5-6 daily to 11 – but it returned to the former level by fall." suggest changing to "but it returned to its former level by fall." which IMO flows better?
  • I think "the" works better, since "its" was used to refer to the station earlier in the sentence.
    • Fair enough—I agree.
• "it was canceled from December 27, 2000, to February 2, 2001 due to equipment shortages," should be "it was canceled between December 27, 2000, and February 2, 2001 due to equipment shortages," unless to is preferred in American English?
  •  Done
• Any updates since 2001?
  • Not that I found.
    • Noted.
• Add template:Use mdy dates and template:Use X English (I presume American?) to the top of the article under the short description.
  •  Done

Refs

All the citations are RS and used correctly.

Spot checks on refs 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 show no concerns—they all support the article's content.

• Ref 3 is missing a date.
  •  Done
• Recommend archiving sources (which have URLs) on the Wayback Machine. I believe a bot that automatically does this is currently down but only twelve citations should not take long at all.
  • I just archived the page, including outlinks, directly with the Wayback Machine. I'm not big on preemptively adding the archive links to everything - I feel it adds bloat without helping the reader - but this ensures that archives will work should any go dead.
    • Fair enough.

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.