Talk:Norfolk station (MBTA)

History

Obviously the building is new, but the station seems to be in the same place as the New York & New England station in the 19th century: [1]. Mackensen (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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:Norfolk station (MBTA)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   There isn't that much to do.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   Need an additional source for double-tracking adding a second platform to the station. Also wondering on some of the more specialized sources.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig mostly caught names of companies (especially long railroad names!).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Two CC-licensed images taken by the main author.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Both have alt text, too.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Not much to do on this one. Make sure to see my ref 22 question.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

• @Sammi Brie: Thanks for the review! My replies are below. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Copy changes

• The financial failure of the B&NYC in 1855 — Since B&NYC isn't used as an acronym anywhere else, mention it with "Boston and New York Central" on first mention.
  •  Done
• The financial failure of the B&NYC in 1855 led to the trustees of the bondholders of the Norfolk County Railroad taking back control of their line, which they leased to the Boston and Providence from 1855–1857, and then to the East Thompson Railroad from 1857–1858, after which the trustees operated the railroad and the Medway Branch themselves. This is a very long sentence. Consider splitting. The financial failure of the B&NYC in 1855 led to the trustees of the bondholders of the Norfolk County Railroad taking back control of their line. They leased it to the Boston and Providence from 1855–1857 and then to the East Thompson Railroad from 1857–1858, after which the trustees operated the railroad and the Medway Branch themselves.
  •  Done
• "30 percent" instead of "30%"
  • MOS:PERCENT allows either form for non-technical articles, and prefers it for technical articles.

Spot checks

What makes some of the railfan-y sources (e.g. Held) reliable?

• • Held isn't my favorite as a SPS, but it's all that's currently out there. I wouldn't use it for anything controversial, but here it doesn't support anything that's not obvious from Google Maps (or hell, the infobox image). Branch Line Press and the Boston Street Railway Association are both reliable publishers with good editorial standards.
• 2: This is the Held map. I'm trying to read it, but it's pictorial. It...seems...right? But I can't quite tell on my own.
• 5: MBTA page on the station. Lists 630 spaces. Y
• 9: Norfolk County map from 1858. Shows North Wrentham with station at the head of the branch line to Medway. Y
• 11: Incorporated as Town of Norfolk, 1870... Y
• 22: The MBTA press release doesn't mention a second platform. Where can I find that info?
  • I've removed "platform" - while adding the second track without a second platform would be nonsensical (not that that's stopped the MBTA before...), you're entirely correct that it's not mentioned in the source.

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.