# Talk:Mishawum station

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mishawum station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 03:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I will be reviewing this article. Steelkamp (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: Thanks for taking this review! I've addressed most of your comments and replied to the others below. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


### Good article criteria
#### Criteria 1
 Well written

they are missing their platform edges, and the station is not accessible. – Would it make more sense to write they are missing their platform edges, so the station is not accessible.
 Done
The MBTA ended remaining Woburn Branch service on January 30, 1981. – This sentence reads strangely to me. Should it be The MBTA ended the remaining Woburn Branch service on January 30, 1981, or The MBTA ended remaining Woburn Branch services on January 30, 1981? Or is this sentence correct in American English? There are several other instances of the word "service" being used like this. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's an ENGVAR thing - in American English, "service" is taken to mean "all the trains that operate on a line".
However, by that time a new station was under development. – Seems weird that this sentence is at the start of a new paragraph, when it references something in the previous paragraph. Maybe rework that sentence, or reconfigure those paragraphs. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done
for a reported $560,000 – Is the word "reported" necessary here? Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
That's the wording used in the source. My (limited) understanding is that "reported" indicates some level of uncertainty about the exact final transaction value.
I don't think the bold text in the body is necessary. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Partly done I've removed one boldface that shouldn't have been there. The two under "Former station" are useful under MOS:BOLDREDIRECT, I reckon.
the first new station on the system since 1982-opened West Natick station. – Replace this with the first station to open on the system since West Natick station in 1982. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done Reworded.
Peter Pan – Replace this with Peter Pan Bus Lines. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done
What is Massport? Google search shows it is the Massachusetts Port Authority. I reckon this should be linked. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done
Should the c in city of Woburn be capitalised? Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure.
A state bill to study reestablishing Mishawum as a full-time stop died in committee in 2002 and 2003. – What does this mean. Can you elaborate on this statement. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done Added some wikilinks to clarify. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
commuter rail service to North Station was disrupted due to security concerns due to North Station's location under the arena. – Too many "due to"s next to each other. Reword to commuter rail service to North Station was disrupted due to security concerns because North Station is located under the arena. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done Reworded that paragraph.
commuter rail service to North Station was disrupted due to security concerns due to North Station's location under the arena. – What does disrupted mean? Were services stopped, or were there just limited services, or were services not running to schedule. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done
The parking area at Mishawum was temporarily reopened, with buses numbered as the normally unused route 53 running directly to South Station. – How long did this happen for? Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done
The MBTA began planning for transit-oriented development around Mishawum station even before it opened. – Clarify that this is talking about the 1984 opening. Change to The MBTA began planning for transit-oriented development around Mishawum station even before it opened in 1984. Steelkamp (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done
Woburn City Council due to concerns about density. – Were the concerns about the density being too high? Clarify this in the article. Steelkamp (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done
The article doesn't explicitly say when the station's parking lot closed. Steelkamp (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't find an exact date - it was clearly after Anderson RTC opened in 2001 but before 2004, but that's all that sources say.
Thanks for addressing all of this. The article passes this criteria. Steelkamp (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 2
 Verifiable with no original research

None of the references in the station design section support the text there. Steelkamp (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't follow. Source 3 (as of this version) establishes the platform layout, location of the mini-high platforms, and relation to roads. Source 4 establishes that the station is not accessible. Source 5 discusses the ramp structure and its location at the inbound platform.
Ok, I agree that most of that paragraph is supported by the reference, but the fifth reference doesn't mention the level crossing. The third reference doesn't show that the station is located in a cut. Steelkamp (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that having those two items not directly sourced isn't ideal, but I'm struggling to find a reliable source that explicitly states those facts. I don't think it's an issue with the GA criteria, which explicitly require citations for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. Given that the infobox image clearly shows both the cut and the level crossing, I can't imagine those statements are likely to be challenged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'm happy with that explanation. Steelkamp (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 3
 Broad in its coverage
Article addresses the main points expected in an article about a train station. The article passes this criteria. Steelkamp (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 4
 Neutral
Article is neutral. The article passes this criteria. Steelkamp (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 5
 Stable
No edit wars or content disputes are ongoing. The article passes this criteria. Steelkamp (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Criteria 6
 Illustrated, if possible
All images in the article have their copyright statuses tagged. Images are all relevant and have suitable captions. The article passes this criteria. Steelkamp (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be rewritten as indefinitely closed? It's been 5 years almost since the disuse of the station, and it has not seen service since. There was no official declaration, yes, but the MBTA is practically trying to erase its existence on its system maps, and as far as I'm aware there are no plans for reinstituting service Archangelectra (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Unless they go through the formal discontinuance process, it's still considered an active station, but the MBTA is rather infamous for its "temporary" discontinuances that last for decades. For the time being, I've edited the lede to clarify the status. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)