Talk:Damen station (CTA Blue Line)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Damen station (CTA Blue Line). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225230400/http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141222/wicker-park/cta-damen-l-station-reopens-its-beautiful-uber-using-commuter-says to http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141222/wicker-park/cta-damen-l-station-reopens-its-beautiful-uber-using-commuter-says

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Damen station (CTA Blue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi- I'll be reviewing this for you over the next couple days! Grk1011 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Make lowercase "S" in "2 Side platforms" (infobox)
  • Done
• Was the station actually rebuilt in 2014 or just renovated? (infobox)
  • Fair point
• Mention that the station is elevated
  • Done
• Wikilink gooseneck lights
  • Done
• Wikilink streetcar
  • Done
• Combine the two sentences in the last paragraph of the lead
  • Done

History

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Last sentence of first paragraph is a bit too long. Break up?
  • Done
• "Robey is the only one still surviving, making it the oldest station on what is now the Blue Line." Can you add an inline citation for this?
  • Hopefully I've done something good to that effect.
• "come back to haunt the company". Word choice.
  • Changed to something somewhat less biased but still accurate.
• The map is cool, but the layering is a bit off. For example, the station locator is shown on the light gray line making it seem like it's not part of the modern-day Blue Line.
  • Originally this was done intentionally; since the old tracks extended less than the modern Blue Line, I was afraid they'd be unduly obstructed on the map. Since trying your way out, though, I've found that this is not the case. I've decided to keep the Loop "above" the Blue Line however, since a) the Loop is physically elevated whereas the Blue Line is underground in that area, this is more accurate, b) I find it more aesthetically pleasing, and c) the Loop still exists, albeit not connecting anywhere to Damen.

Station renovations and rehabilitations

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Is the crosswalk across the tracks? I'm having a hard time imagining what it looks like, especially in an elevated track environment.
  • The crosswalk was located south of the southern (eastbound) Humboldt Park track, which diverged westward from Damen and (like the branch itself) no longer exists. I've tried to clarify to that effect.
• The lead mentions 2018 renovations, but there doesn't appear to be any explanation of what that entailed. Was it just the art installation?
  • Probably, yes. I'll look into it more to see.

Station details

Infrastructure and facilities

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• elevated wooden side platforms
  • Done
• "but did not add any accessibility for riders with disabilities" -> "include any accessibility improvements for riders with disabilities"
  • Done
• Where in ref 31 does it say the station is no accessible?
  • ADA-accessible CTA stations are marked with a wheelchair icon and labeled "Accessible", like so. No such icon or text appears on Damen's website, hence it is ADA-inacessible.
• The last paragraph feels more like an introductory paragraph. Can it be incorporated into the first paragraph?
  • Done

Operations

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• First sentence: start a new sentence instead of using a semi-colon.
  • Done
• I'm lost between the 22 minutes, 13 minutes off, and 14-15 minutes. These are all for different distances though? The way this is worded with semi-colons make it seem like you're comparing them over time.
  • I am comparing between 1895, 1951, and 2022. These are for different distances, but they're similar enough IMO (all to and from downtown).
• Move "($1.27 in 2021)" after 1917 <-needs the initial date identified before you convert with inflation
  • Done
• Move "($1.35 in 2021)" after 1920. Leave (10 cents) where it is.
  • Done
• Overall though, the history of the transit system's fares feels too in-depth/tangential for a station-specific article. Trim this down and combine it with the next paragraph.
  • I somewhat disagree, but I have moved the fare-collection information to the appropriate paragraph
• Smoking within the train cars doesn't appear to be relevant to the station's operation.
  • I disagree; the smoking ban across the "L" presumably affects all facilities, including stations.
    • Can you include that then? Otherwise what happens inside the train isn't relevant to the station itself. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Connections

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Too detailed (i.e. "Buses replaced streetcars on weekends on October 28, 1951, and altogether on May 11, 1952.", historic hours of operation, types of vehicles and lengths, etc.)
  • I somewhat disagree, but see below.
• Refocus this section on how these connections directly impact Damen station. This is good history, but not quite the right article for it.
  • I've decided to keep dates and owl service/hours, but moved route info to the articles on the respective streets themselves.

Ridership

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Issue with non-breaking spaces in the text after the graph
  • Fixed, but I don't see a difference in the end.
    • It was the "nbsp" throughout the section. I fixed it for you. On mobile Wikipedia, it made a new line after each instance of that code. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Why does the graph end in the mid-2010s and where is the yearly data sourced to? You could add a title to the graph with a summary ref.
  • @Grk1011: I am technically improficient at graphs, and don't know how to add titles and sources. Could you show me an example? Thanks! (I'll get to the rest of this later today.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I've converted the graph to an image format. You can now add an inline citation for the ridership figures perhaps at the end of the graph's description. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Have the graph be after all the riderhip-related text.
  • I disagree, I think it's more aesthetically pleasing and professional to have a paragraph of text between the graph and the next header rather than an abrupt ending.

Damen Tower

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• The second paragraph is unreferenced
  • Fixed

Art

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• First sentence is unreferenced
  • Fixed
• Instead of a stub section, include this information in the Infrastructure and facilities section
  • I disagree; Featured Articles in rapid transit such as Chinatown MRT station include entire sections on artwork, so I think one suffices here despite its brevity.
    • That article has a fairly substantial art component though. Per MOS:OVERSECTION, very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. I feel the best way to handle this is to move this information to a section of the article where it is inherently relevant: Infrastructure and facilities. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
      • @Grk1011: I thought the station had a much greater pop culture than it actually did, so I have removed the section and moved/removed material as seen fit. In any event, your other concerns should be addressed as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe Transit Chicago is the name of the official website. Just the publisher should suffice in this case per template instructions. Also wikilink at least one Chicago Transit Authority.
  • Removed
• Offline references accepted in good faith
• Online sources checked
• Earwig's tool showed no indications of copyvios from online sources

GA checklist

1. Well written: yes, with some comments/clarifications above
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: yes, with some comments/clarifications above
3. Broad in coverage: yes
4. Neutral: yes
5. Stable: yes
6. Images: properly licensed and relevant

Discussion

 On hold while the above comments are addressed or explained. Great job with this! Grk1011 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Thank you for making those changes! A couple responses sprinkled above. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the last items were addressed! Passing this now. Grk1011 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Damen is the oldest station on the Blue Line? Source: Chicago Tribune 1895
  • ALT1: ... that Damen, despite being one of the busiest stations on the Chicago "L", lacks accessibility for the disabled? Sources: Hauser 2014, CTA ridership reports
  • ALT2: ... that Damen almost always had more than a million riders for the first quarter of the 20th century, but except for 1950 wouldn't have those figures again until 1997? Sources: CTA 1979, CTA 2006
  • ALT3: ... that Damen, not in the top 100 Chicago "L" stations by ridership in 1947, is consistently in its top 40 in recent years? Sources: CTA 1979, CTA ridership reports
  • ALT4: ... that Damen had no positive fare control as late as 1960? Source: photographs from 1960
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1998
  • Comment: Could probably think of more hooks but my brain is currently being dumb.

Improved to Good Article status by John M Wolfson (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 00:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Prefer ALT1 Hook, as gives context, is the most recent, and the most interesting Melcous (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)