# Talk:Damen station (CTA Blue Line)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Damen station (CTA Blue Line). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225230400/http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141222/wicker-park/cta-damen-l-station-reopens-its-beautiful-uber-using-commuter-says to http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141222/wicker-park/cta-damen-l-station-reopens-its-beautiful-uber-using-commuter-says
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Damen station (CTA Blue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi- I'll be reviewing this for you over the next couple days! Grk1011 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Make lowercase "S" in "2 Side platforms" (infobox)
Done
Was the station actually rebuilt in 2014 or just renovated? (infobox)
Fair point
Mention that the station is elevated
Done
Wikilink gooseneck lights
Done
Wikilink streetcar
Done
Combine the two sentences in the last paragraph of the lead
Done


### History
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Last sentence of first paragraph is a bit too long. Break up?
Done
"Robey is the only one still surviving, making it the oldest station on what is now the Blue Line." Can you add an inline citation for this?
Hopefully I've done something good to that effect.
"come back to haunt the company". Word choice.
Changed to something somewhat less biased but still accurate.
The map is cool, but the layering is a bit off. For example, the station locator is shown on the light gray line making it seem like it's not part of the modern-day Blue Line.
Originally this was done intentionally; since the old tracks extended less than the modern Blue Line, I was afraid they'd be unduly obstructed on the map. Since trying your way out, though, I've found that this is not the case. I've decided to keep the Loop "above" the Blue Line however, since a) the Loop is physically elevated whereas the Blue Line is underground in that area, this is more accurate, b) I find it more aesthetically pleasing, and c) the Loop still exists, albeit not connecting anywhere to Damen.


### Station renovations and rehabilitations
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the crosswalk across the tracks? I'm having a hard time imagining what it looks like, especially in an elevated track environment.
The crosswalk was located south of the southern (eastbound) Humboldt Park track, which diverged westward from Damen and (like the branch itself) no longer exists. I've tried to clarify to that effect.
The lead mentions 2018 renovations, but there doesn't appear to be any explanation of what that entailed. Was it just the art installation?
Probably, yes. I'll look into it more to see.


### Station details
#### Infrastructure and facilities
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

elevated wooden side platforms
Done
"but did not add any accessibility for riders with disabilities" -> "include any accessibility improvements for riders with disabilities"
Done
Where in ref 31 does it say the station is no accessible?
ADA-accessible CTA stations are marked with a wheelchair icon and labeled "Accessible", like so. No such icon or text appears on Damen's website, hence it is ADA-inacessible.
The last paragraph feels more like an introductory paragraph. Can it be incorporated into the first paragraph?
Done


#### Operations
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

First sentence: start a new sentence instead of using a semi-colon.
Done
I'm lost between the 22 minutes, 13 minutes off, and 14-15 minutes. These are all for different distances though? The way this is worded with semi-colons make it seem like you're comparing them over time.
I am comparing between 1895, 1951, and 2022. These are for different distances, but they're similar enough IMO (all to and from downtown).
Move "($1.27 in 2021)" after 1917 <-needs the initial date identified before you convert with inflation
Done
Move "($1.35 in 2021)" after 1920. Leave (10 cents) where it is.
Done
Overall though, the history of the transit system's fares feels too in-depth/tangential for a station-specific article. Trim this down and combine it with the next paragraph.
I somewhat disagree, but I have moved the fare-collection information to the appropriate paragraph
Smoking within the train cars doesn't appear to be relevant to the station's operation.
I disagree; the smoking ban across the "L" presumably affects all facilities, including stations.
Can you include that then? Otherwise what happens inside the train isn't relevant to the station itself. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


#### Connections
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Too detailed (i.e. "Buses replaced streetcars on weekends on October 28, 1951, and altogether on May 11, 1952.", historic hours of operation, types of vehicles and lengths, etc.)
I somewhat disagree, but see below.
Refocus this section on how these connections directly impact Damen station. This is good history, but not quite the right article for it.
I've decided to keep dates and owl service/hours, but moved route info to the articles on the respective streets themselves.


#### Ridership
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue with non-breaking spaces in the text after the graph
Fixed, but I don't see a difference in the end.
It was the "nbsp" throughout the section. I fixed it for you. On mobile Wikipedia, it made a new line after each instance of that code. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Why does the graph end in the mid-2010s and where is the yearly data sourced to? You could add a title to the graph with a summary ref.
@Grk1011: I am technically improficient at graphs, and don't know how to add titles and sources. Could you show me an example? Thanks! (I'll get to the rest of this later today.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I've converted the graph to an image format. You can now add an inline citation for the ridership figures perhaps at the end of the graph's description. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Have the graph be after all the riderhip-related text.
I disagree, I think it's more aesthetically pleasing and professional to have a paragraph of text between the graph and the next header rather than an abrupt ending.


#### Damen Tower
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph is unreferenced
Fixed


#### Art
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

First sentence is unreferenced
Fixed
Instead of a stub section, include this information in the Infrastructure and facilities section
I disagree; Featured Articles in rapid transit such as Chinatown MRT station include entire sections on artwork, so I think one suffices here despite its brevity.
That article has a fairly substantial art component though. Per MOS:OVERSECTION, very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. I feel the best way to handle this is to move this information to a section of the article where it is inherently relevant: Infrastructure and facilities. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@Grk1011: I thought the station had a much greater pop culture than it actually did, so I have removed the section and moved/removed material as seen fit. In any event, your other concerns should be addressed as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


### References
 Done Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe Transit Chicago is the name of the official website. Just the publisher should suffice in this case per template instructions. Also wikilink at least one Chicago Transit Authority.
Removed
Offline references accepted in good faith
Online sources checked
Earwig's tool showed no indications of copyvios from online sources


### GA checklist
Well written: yes, with some comments/clarifications above
Factually accurate and verifiable: yes, with some comments/clarifications above
Broad in coverage: yes
Neutral: yes
Stable: yes
Images: properly licensed and relevant


### Discussion
 On hold while the above comments are addressed or explained. Great job with this! Grk1011 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Thank you for making those changes! A couple responses sprinkled above. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like the last items were addressed! Passing this now. Grk1011 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)