Talk:Stoughton station

GA review

Passed. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 05:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Stoughton station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alachuckthebuck (talk · contribs) 18:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is mostly great, the first sentance of the "station design" could use a bit more clarifacation on "arterial", is it a highway, mainline track, a blood bank?
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Mostly good, maybe add a sentance in the lede talking about possible completion of phase two, as that's probably something people would like to know. Errors have been fixed.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. references all look good, online source check came back clean.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I can't check the book, but everything else looks good to me. A bit primary source heavy, but not much we can do about it.
2c. it contains no original research. Closest thing to OR is photos of the station by Pi.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig came back clean
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Get's the important parts.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Covers all the important parts of the stations history without diving into the weeds.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article tells it like it is.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. only human contributor within the last 3 months is the author.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are under a free license. Kudos for getting the image yourself!
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images have alt text and good captions.
7. Overall assessment.

@Pi.1415926535:, Courtesy ping, awaiting your feedback. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck Thanks for the review! I've adjusted the wording for the two points you raised. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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 History6042 talk 15:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 62 past nominations.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stoughton_station