# Talk:Chelsea station (MBTA)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chelsea station (MBTA)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll be looking at this one tomorrow. eviolite (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2022 (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): 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Images:

All good - haven't seen annotated images being used for crops before, but it's probably fine
Although, the caption for the map should read "East Everett station" instead of "The station" as it's ambiguous
 Done
Sourcing:

Not sure what the Flickr image is meant to be citing
The one-story wooden station... Technically the Sanborn map also indicates that, but the Flickr image is an easier-to-understand source. (It's from a reputable historical group, so there shouldn't be RS issues.)
 Comment: Alright, if it's reliable then that's fine.
Otherwise, everything is good
Lead:

"The Boston and Maine Railroad and predecessor Eastern Railroad served an East Everett station nearby from 1880 until around 1950." This feels a bit awkward, maybe "From 1880 to around 1950, the Eastern Railroad and the Boston and Maine Railroad served East Everett station, near modern-day Chelsea station."? I'd just prefer to make it explicit the connection between the old railroads and this station
 Done Reworded.
Station layout:

"at Everett Avenue" - maybe "on"?
 Done Reworded.
What does "high-level" mean in this context?
 Done Wikilinked.
Would it be helpful to also add in the fare zone?
I don't personally think so; while it's standard in the infobox, it doesn't seem particularly relevant in the prose.
History:

Link Revere, Massachusetts
 Done
Consider linking Main line (railway)
 Done
Why is East Everett bolded?
It's the target of a redirect that's likely to see use - see MOS:BOLDREDIRECT
 Comment: I couldn't find which redirect you referred to so I created East Everett stationEast Everett station.
Thanks! I've added a few categories to the redirect. On the technical side, Adjacent stations modules (Module:Adjacent stations/Boston and Maine Railroad in this case) also can act as redirects.
Clarify where Boston and 2nd is in relation to the location of the current station (since there is no context for why a different station in another place is being discussed)
 Done
"began studying an extension of" - consider changing to "began studying a proposed extension of"?
 Done
Is there any more information on the "existing Chelsea station"? I assume this is not the same as the East Everett station so it should probably be talked about (or clarified if it was in a completely different location)
It's discussed and wikilinked in the previous paragraph.
" with the commuter rail platforms at Bellingham Square closed at that time" - is there any reason for this?
As discussed in the paragraph beginning On October 30, 2013, the platforms at this Chelsea station were a direct replacement for those at Bellingham Square (which, confusingly, was formerly called Chelsea.) I'm open to any copyediting suggestions.
 Comment: Maybe it would help if it read "original commuter rail platforms at the site of Bellingham Square station"? Not really sure.
How does this look?
That's all, again a nice article. @Pi.1415926535: Placing on hold. eviolite (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: Thanks for the review! I've left my comments above - I implemented most of your suggestions, and I'm open to potential copyediting for the last few paragraphs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks, responded inline with  Comment:s. eviolite (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Eviolite: Replies are above. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Everything looks good, happy to pass. Great work again, Pi.1415926535. eviolite (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)