# Talk:Freetown station

This review is transcluded from Talk:Freetown station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bwoodcock (talk · contribs) 03:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, however comprehensive and well-formatted this article may be, it's discussing a still-underway project, and consists largely of speculative statements about things that may come to pass in the future.  It could, hypothetically, be re-cast from "will" to "is planned to" throughout, but that would make it difficult to read and would cast a hard light on its fundamental problem, which is that it's simply too early. If the project is supposed to be done in 2023, I'd expect a "good" article about it to exist by 2024. Right now, the article is having to cast far too far afield for content. Bill Woodcock (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bwoodcock: I do not feel this is a fair review. GA reviews are expected to be solely based on the GA criteria. The only time-related rule for GA is WP:GAN#FILM - that films are not eligible for GA until released, because most details (plot, reception, box office stats, etc) are only available after release. That is not the case here - this is a project under active construction for which the details have already been finalized, so there are not CRYSTALBALL issues. The only details that will change are construction progress and the final opening date. Those represent only a small portion of the article, which primarily consists of the station design (finalized), previous station history (not going to change), and planning for the station (not going to change). Additionally, there is precedent that under-construction stations are eligible for GA. East Taunton station on this same project is already GA; Northgate station (Sound Transit) and its two fellow stations passed GA four years before their opening.
If you do not wish to do a full review, please ask for a second opinion or new reviewer. Thank you, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: That was a full review. You just didn't like what it said. But, sure, what the heck, you're welcome to shop reviewers instead of thinking about what I said. You seem awfully invested in the subject matter. Bill Woodcock (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 Second opinion. Articles about future events can be good and featured articles, but only if certain conditions are met (for example, Future of Earth). Number one, the nominator is expected to maintain the article to the standards any time new information is published. Number two, the article must include already known information. Here, for example, the article is not entirely about a future station. The article is about a previously existing station that will be rebuilt. Per WP:GA?: "Stability is based on the articles current state, not any potential for instability in the future." As Pi pointed out, works of art are unfinished works and can't be considered as good articles because of the "Broad in its coverage" rules (an exemption to this rule would be 100 Years (film) if there's enough information about the general aspects of the film that happened to be published before 2115). I also have to remind the reviewer that being WP:Polite is a policy. With that said, it's up to the reviewer to determine if they consider the article to be broad enough and if they want to continue with the review or to close it altogether. The nominator is reminded that if they disagree with the review, they can renominate the article at any point. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: I'm just the guy whose number came up, I don't have any point to make. I looked at the article, it seems very far from GA status to me, enough so that I don't think a short series of specific edits will fix it, and I explained why. I've got no dog in this fight, which is the entire point. I'm not here to have an argument. This is a brief, dense article written by a small number of enthusiasts over a small number of edits. It's not broad in scope, it's not of general interest, it doesn't have narrative flow. So if the goal is just to have a "Good Article" by checking boxes and hand-waving away the "well written" part, and not to have a good article, then I guess, sure, it's no skin off my back. But it seems an unfortunate dilution of what's intended to be an incentive to better quality. So, the pertinent question, Tbhotch: What's your opinion? Do you believe this is meets the spirit and the specifics of GA status? As I said, I don't have any strong opinions here, and that's the point of getting a second opinion. Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Your main concern was, quoted, that "it's discussing a still-underway project, and consists largely of speculative statements". Although railway projects are adjusted to the needs of the company and line, they are infrequently modified to the point that they deliver a completely different result in one year. Therefore, I can't see where's the speculation (if we define it as "engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge"). As a reviewer, my main concern would be the Broad in its coverage point (i.e. if is in-scope or out of scope), but I would compare it with other similar articles. The article meets the criterion if you compare it with the under-construction East Taunton station. The article doesn't meet the criterion if you compare it with 32-year-old South Attleboro station. The article might meet the criterion if you compare it with the 5-year-old Wachusett station. I would, however, choose the first option as another editor opened the door for future stations (ignoring the Sound Transit stations). If I take your first comment that this is a "comprehensive and well-formatted" article, then I would perform a thorough review. The article, however, still needs some work. For example, in source 8 "THE SCENIC SHORELINE ROUTE SERVING NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLAND" should be written in title caps as per WP:Allcaps. Additional concerns should be presented by the reviewer (formatted with the Template:GATable or alike system). (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Second Opinion: Yes, I too agree with both the reviewers and their reasons. This article is not GA level. Thank You. Kpddg (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Second opinion. We have a stalled review here. It happens. This looks to me like the reviewer has stopped the review as they feel it doesn't meet the criteria for a full review. The quick fail criteria are here: WP:GAFAIL. It strikes me that  Bill Woodcock is probably new to GA and the  criteria, protocol, and procedures, and that is where the confusion is, and why we now have a stalled review. Again, it happens. I think most of us struggled with our first few reviews. Everything on Wikipedia is a learning curve, and people need to learn how to do a GA review. It helps if the reviewer has been through a GA review as nominator themselves, though that is not required, and many very good reviewers have not written a Good Article themselves.
Bill Woodcock has made three statements, though, unfortunately, they are not tied closely to GA criteria, either quick or full review. Again, I feel this is the result of not yet being familiar with GA process (this will come with more reviews!). In the first they reject the article, "however comprehensive and well-formatted" it is, on the grounds that it "is having to cast far too far afield for content". We judge an article on its scope, which is "the range of material that belongs in the article", and "The title together with the lead section (ideally, the introductory sentence or at least the introductory paragraph) of an article should make clear what the scope of the article is." So, this article is about "Freetown station" an "under-construction MBTA Commuter Rail station located in southwestern Freetown, Massachusetts."  I understand Bill Woodcock's hesitation in reviewing an article on an unfinished project for fear that the article does not remain on scope, however what we need to look at is: does it contain enough material for readers to be left clear as to the main aspects of the topic? It is worth noting that we have many articles on proposed stations as indicated by Category:Proposed railway stations; there are 26 articles alone on Proposed railway stations in Brazil. The topic IS viable, so what a reviewer needs to do is assess the article on its own stated scope.
Bill Woodcock's second statement is "That was a full review. You just didn't like what it said. But, sure, what the heck, you're welcome to shop reviewers instead of thinking about what I said. You seem awfully invested in the subject matter." That provides no helpful information, and is a personal attack. User:Bwoodcock, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and comment on content or process rather than contributors. This is not a formal warning or caution, just an advisory; though be aware that continuing to attempt to insult, undermine, belittle, or disparage a fellow contributor will likely lead to sanctions. Again, not a warning, just a head's up. It would be inappropriate of me, given my experience and status, to let that pass by without a comment. But you are not being told off, just being made aware that such speech is not acceptable here on Wikipedia.
The third comment is Bill's longest and most detailed comment so far. If we cut out extraneous material, we are left with "it seems very far from GA status to me, enough so that I don't think a short series of specific edits will fix it", and "It's not broad in scope, it's not of general interest, it doesn't have narrative flow." I assume by "not broad in scope" Bill means something related to broad coverage, scope being something different to coverage. I also assume Bill means that they feel the article doesn't cover enough of the main aspects of the topic. That Bill feels the article is "not of general interest" is a personal opinion  not borne out by the number of articles we have on this topic. As regards "it doesn't have narrative flow"; I understand that comment, and I suspect that Bill comes from a writing background. However, this is an encyclopedia article not an article for a magazine. We don't look for narrative flow. We look for useful ways of presenting information. Readers use Wikipedia in many different ways, but the majority of people are looking for quick factual information, perhaps to answer a query. The writing should be clear and helpful, but it doesn't need to have narrative flow. Indeed, it is sometimes better without such a flow. We prefer to present the information in independent sections so people can go straight to the section they require. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles for more help on this. But, yes, people from a non-technical writing background can sometimes have difficulty adjusting to Wikipedia's ways! I know I did.
Now, does this article meet GA criteria? That I don't know, as it has not yet been reviewed. Does this article meet the criteria for a quick fail? No, it does not. So, we are stalled. Now, if Bill Woodcock does not want to review this article, fair enough. That happens. My suggestion is to treat this as a withdrawn review: WP:GAN/I#N4, and let it go back into the stack.
Bwoodcock and Pi.1415926535 would you both agree that we should treat this as a withdrawn review, and follow the procedure in WP:GAN/I#N4? SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
SilkTork, thanks for your thorough look. Yes, that sounds fine to me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
SilkTork, yes, certainly. You're exactly right that this was my first attempt (I think, maybe second?) at a GA review, and I found it frustrating how far apart we were in expectations. At the same time, I was new enough to the process that I didn't feel right about failing it. And both my daughters came down with Covid, so, yes, I let it stall, for which everyone has my apologies. I've since recognized how much value the formality of the point-by-point review system brings to the process, and if I were to try it again at this point, with this article, I still wouldn't pass the article, but would focus more specifically on 1a and 3. This article doesn't make a good case that this is a topic about which enough can be written to justify GA on the grounds of comprehensiveness without going over the line into excess detail which is not of interest to a broad audience. There's no guarantee that there's an intersection of those two possibilities for every topic. But yes, in any event, I'm fine with the request being withdrawn, or if people prefer, I can fail it on the above grounds with a more formal review with a little table and everything. Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that Bill Woodcock. I'll do the withdrawal. As regards "I can fail it..." Reviewers will point out where they feel an article doesn't meet GA criteria, and then allow some time for the nominator to work on the article to see if it can reach GA standards in a reasonable space of time - the minimum time being seven days, though if progress is being made then that can be extended for as long as reviewer and nominator are happy. And most reviewers will help out in the process of bringing the article up to GA status. Essentially, the process is about improving Wikipedia's coverage, it's not about judging the nomination or nominator. Up to each reviewer how they go about things, but we do expect the reviewer to help out - see WP:GAN/I#R3 for some quick notes on this. If, as you are reviewing, you keep in mind a question such as "Is my comment or action going to help improve the article?", that may help guide you toward saying and doing positive things, and ultimately helping the nominator, the article, Wikipedia, the reading public, and yourself. Also, something I keep strongly in mind during a review, is that most of the GA criteria are not simple black and white, rather, they are guidelines open to interpretation. Sometimes it can be be helpful to ask a question rather than make a judgement. A common question, for example, is: "What makes this a reliable source?"  rather than asserting: "This is not a reliable source." Sometimes the way a source is used makes it allowable, and the nominator, who should be familiar with the article and the source, may provide a valid reason the reviewer hadn't considered. So, look for ways to help improve the article, and keep an open mind. I note that you are now using a template in GA reviews. That's excellent. My reviews improved a lot when I started using a template. I think you'll do well! SilkTork (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Freetown station/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 21:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.


### Infobox and lede
"It is planned to open in" → "Its planned opening is set for"
Given how common schedule changes are during construction of transit projects, the exact date is liable to shift over the next two years. I don't want to say "set" until the opening date (especially a specific day) is definitively decided. Pi.1415926535 (talk)


### Station design
Link "Freetown" in the phrase "in southwestern Freetown"
 Done
"kiss-and-ride" seems like a local idiom, try what the source says, "park and ride"
"Kiss and ride" specifically refers to a location (usually inside a park-and-ride lot) to briefly stop for dropping off or picking up passengers - see Park and ride#Kiss and ride. I've clarified this in the prose.


### History
#### Previous stations
Bolded phrases don't need to be bolded, per MOS:BOLD
See MOS:BOLDREDIRECT - these are intentional redirect targets.
Commas rather than dashes around "the junction with the 1866-opened Dighton and Somerset Railroad"
 Done


#### South Coast Rail
Delink "Route 24/79 expressway" here, linked above
 Done
"35% complete" → "35 percent complete" per MOS:PERCENT
MOS:PERCENT doesn't enforce either style (more common), and I'd argue this is a relatively technical article anyway.


### References
Page numbers would be preferred for the atlas entries
 Done
The Boston Globe source should have "|url-access=subscription" marked
 Done Added a non-paywalled archive.


### General comments
Images look good and are relevant
No stability concerns in the revision history despite being under construction
Copyvio score looks good
Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 22:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: Thanks for the review! I've replied to your comments above. I'll take a look at reviewing one of your GA noms, though I may demur due to my lack of BLP experience. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for making those changes and for explaining what you did not change. Happy to pass this article! — GhostRiver 19:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)