Talk:Bellows Falls station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 12:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi i will be taking this review. will update soon.

General comments

• Article is well sourced, no copyvio, and has good images.
• Article length is a bit short but not of a major issue. will go more detailed later.
• Article is Neutral and stable.
• Article may be lacking some information but otherwise quite ok

Detailed

• why is there no wikilink to United States in the first sentence?

 Not done per MOS:COMMONWORDS

• 'Three railroads ... were completed to Bellows Falls in 1849' the sentence sounds weird

 Not done I don't see what's wrong with that.

• ' After a number of mergers and leases over the next half-century, by 1900 the Boston and Maine Railroad (B&M)...' This sentence does not flow nicely, a rework would be good

 Partly done I added a few words that should hopefully help.

• The passenger statistics needs updating.

 Done Updated to FY 2018, the most recent available.

• Nothing really wrong with this but there is quite a lot of semicolons in the article, some of them aren't really needed and it may sound nicer without them.

 Not done But I'm open to reworking some sentences if you can point out any particular ones.

• Is it necessary to say that the REA building currently houses the offices of the green mountain railroad? sounds like trivia to me.

 Not done Discussing reuse of former station buildings is standard for station articles, doubly so because it's a railroad reuse.

• What does the island in the initial railroads section refer to? is the station located on an island?

 Not done Per the first paragraph of that section: ...it met the previous two railroads at the north end of the island formed by the canal.

• The article abruptly jumps from 1927 to 1953. Is there anything notable in between?

 Not done Not in particular. That's fairly common for railroad stations - they may go decades without significant service changes or construction. Neither the NRHP form nor the Great American Stations profile mention anything significant between 1927 and 1953

• Combine the sentence that mentions the removal of the canopy with the previous sentence.

 Not done I can't find any way to do that without adding yet another semicolon splice.

maybe using 'and' would help

• In the Amtrak era section, it is mentioned that vermont was only served by amtrak after a legislation allowed for international service. Isnt vermont in the US? please clarify.

 Done I rewrote that with an additional citation.

• I would suggest having a section on current services as the article seems to have stopped in the 1990s.

 Partly done Again, stations often have time skips without significant events. I added a sentence to clarify that service is the same as 1995.

• Given the long history of the station i feel that the article should have more information. try to expand the prose and maybe add a section or two that is relevant to he topic.

 Not done I've added all pertinent information available from the sources I am aware of. Good articles do not have any specific length requirement; they are merely required to provide appropriate (detailed, but not excessively so) coverage of the topic

I've made some changes that I think are appropriate. Unfortunately I am not able to make many of your suggested changes, but I hope I've explained why some things are written as they are. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes and clarifying some of the things that i had pointed out. There is one minor issue left that needs to be addressed before i can pass the article.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to make that change. The end of service and the removal of the canopy are two separate events, and there's no way to combine the sentence in a useful way. Why is having two clear sentences a problem? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your explanation. Please tell me if i am viewing this wromgly but in this case the removal of the canopy was a result of the end of train services as it would not be utilized anymore and therefore it can be included together. If for example the canopy was removed due to high maintenance costs then it would be appropriate to separate the sentences. 1.02 editor (T/C) 05:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The source does not specify whether the two events are connected or not. Even if it was, it would be better to have two short and clear sentences than one meandering sentence. I repeat: why is the current wording a problem, especially one that would prevent the article from being GA quality? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This has come down to a matter of preference. This problem does not stop the article from promotion but it makes article very punctuating (if you get what i mean) and i would prefer a smoother version but again i say this is a matter of preference so i wont hold back the article now.

Hold

@Pi.1415926535: I have reviewed the article and have some comments and queries that would need to be resolved before i can pass the article. The article will be on hold for 7 days for the changes to be made. If you have any queries please do tell me. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Passing

All raised concerns have been addressed and resolved and the article is of a decent quality now. Ensure that the passenger statics are updated to FY2019 when the information is released. Passing. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)