Talk:Route 128 station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 15:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review this article for GA. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I will get to this today or tomorrow. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Thanks for the detailed review. I've fixed the issues raised in most of your comments, and left explanations for others. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: okay, thanks for the prompt response. I'll finish the review then promote to GA as it seems this article easily meets the criteria. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• the New Haven opened Route 128 what does 'the New Haven' mean in this case? If it refers to the previously mentioned railroad, then how is it possible that it 'opened' Route 128? I may be completely misunderstanding the situation; I know very little about trains and how rail systems work.
  • Yes, it refers to the railroad, which opened Route 128 station (not the expressway).

Station design

• This section could be retitled to just 'Design' as it's obvious it's referring to the station.
  • "Station design" (or "Station layout") is typical for railroad articles. My prior GAs, and the dozens by the NYC Transit wikiproject, typically use one of those headers.
• The station has two 1,050-foot (320 m)-long side platforms (the standard Amtrak length[8]) serving the two tracks of the Northeast Corridor. should reference 8 be at the end of this sentence because I can't see any mention of the length of the platforms in reference 1, which is used also used in the paragraph.
  • This one was tricky. I couldn't find a direct source for the platform lengths being 1,050 feet. It doesn't seem likely to be challenged - it's very easy to measure on Google Maps et al - so that's the best I can do. I put the citation that establishes that 1,050 is the standard length with the parenthetical fact since it only supports that fact and doesn't support the whole sentence. I did add a source that supports the platform/track configuration without an explicit platform length.
• West of the garage is a four-story parking garage presumably you mean "West of the station"?
  •  Done

History

• Wikilink to grade crossing/level crossing.
  •  Done
• was replaced with a bridge was this a bridge over the road, or a bridge over the railway?
  •  Done
• Do we need to mention the name of the woman who was killed?
  • Eh, I don't see why it would be a problem.
• I haven't read further on to see if the station was relocated, but you say the station was built on the same site as the former Green Lodge station., but in the lede, you say it was near the modern station site
  •  Done
• This section jumps back and forth chronologically. It runs chronologically, then returns to 1977 concerning the bridge and then to 1998. Some paragraphs might just need rearranging.
  •  Done Swapped the last two paragraphs.
• The MBTA would pay $20.6 million of the $43.2 million cost, with Amtrak funding the remaining $22.6 million. I think "the remaining..." should be the smaller amount of money of the two, so this should be switched around.
  •  Done
• Concerning the constructions in 1998, it would be helpful, per this source, to mention the nearby location of the wetlands and the potential environmental impact of the runoff. Without this, the objections from the nearby towns seem somewhat unfounded.
  •  Done
• opened in on January 18, 2000. typo here.
  •  Done
• The Acela Express service (which could only use high-level platforms) began running in December 2000. I think you should clarify that this is a service of Amtrak.
  •  Done
• The project was shelved in 2010 due to the recession this will need to be more specific or a wikilink added, presumably to Great Recession.
• the escalator serving the southbound platform failed and was not repaired due to lack of funding for replacement. this doesn't make sense. It could not be repaired due to lack of funding for replacement - not the same thing.

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

A solid article with that covers the topic broadly and in detail. It generally stays focussed on the topic and is neutral in tone. The references are reliable and are well cited. The photos are relevant and all but one were taken by the nom, so no issues here. Earwig's copyvio detector shows unlikely violation and the article is very stable. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)