# Talk:Ayer station

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayer (MBTA station)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 05:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
There is only a brief mention of the station setup and current conditions in the Lead. To balance the article better, could you add a section about those topics? Perhaps add a station track diagram?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The middle three images in the body of the article are very close to each other. Can you balance them better throughout the article?
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
There are a lot of red symbols, but none of the problems are insurmountable. I will give you a minimum of 7 days to address my comments.  VC  05:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


### Comments
Thanks for the detailed review! I've addressed most of your technical concerns. Dashes replaced, acronyms properly used, locations and railroad terms wikilinked. Willows debolded and refs removed from the lede. Map replaced with one of better sourcing. Nashoba and all-caps sources fixed. I modified {{MBTA Bluebook 2014}} to clarify that it is the 14th edition and coincidentally also published in 2014.
What was ref 4 (now 20) does not have an author in the by-line. For ref 1, I'm wary of adding page numbers. The document is updated frequently; page numbers tend to shift. As a compromise, I modified the citation to add the chapter, which remains fixed. The document is generally considered the most complete and reliable source of MBTA history; its main author is a state transportation analyst and an officer of the Boston Street Railway Association, and I've seen it used internally at the MBTA as a reference source. Tom Humphreys, who wrote most of the commuter rail section, is the lead author on a book that I'll soon be adding as a citation.
I've dragged up some additional history information which I'll be using to expand that section; most of your remaining concerns should be addressed when I complete that and rewrite the lede. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Viridiscalculus: I've completed an expansion of the history section and rewritten the lede. I believe I've addressed just about all of your concerns. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: There are a few more things to fix:

Once those things are addressed, we should be done. I love the map you used to replace the one that suggested original research!  VC  17:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Viridiscalculus: I have fixed all but the first; bolding previous names of stations (with redirects) is the accepted practice for rail articles. I've created Ayer Junction station, Groton Junction station, and Groton station (Fitchburg Railroad) which redirect to this article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: I like the new station layout section. I will compromise on the bolding of previous names of stations since it is a project standard and you created the redirects. However, the acronyms are still inconsistent. Can you go through all of the acronyms you use and fix those?  VC  22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Viridiscalculus: I've fixed two more instances; if there are any remaining, can you point me to where? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: I only found one more instance of Worcester & Nashua, but it is used in a caption, so that does not need to be fixed. I will pass the article!   VC  14:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)