This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Union Square station (Somerville) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Union Square station (Somerville) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Union Square station (Somerville) is part of the Green Line Extension series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: moved, I guess. These were moved almost a month ago, without waiting for an impartial closer I might add, but it doesn't seem anyone has had an objection to it. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
– Established practice with MBTA station articles is to disambiguate identically-named stations by their line and (for the Green Line) branch, not by their location. Also, the current title for the "A" Branch station has two sets of parentheses in a row, which looks horrible to the eye, and is, in addition, quite clunky, even if its ghastly appearance is ignored. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lechmere (MBTA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Trains2050 ( talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I will be revewing this article over the next few days, please see the table bellow on my progress in the review. Thank you for nominating this article Trains2050 ( talk) 08:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | seems good |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | seems good |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Seems good |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Seems good |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | seems good |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | very good coverage |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | sticks to the topic |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | seems good |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | no edit wars currently |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | good alt text and own work |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | all good |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold until changes are made
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Union Square station (Somerville) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Union Square station (Somerville) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Union Square station (Somerville) is part of the Green Line Extension series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: moved, I guess. These were moved almost a month ago, without waiting for an impartial closer I might add, but it doesn't seem anyone has had an objection to it. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
– Established practice with MBTA station articles is to disambiguate identically-named stations by their line and (for the Green Line) branch, not by their location. Also, the current title for the "A" Branch station has two sets of parentheses in a row, which looks horrible to the eye, and is, in addition, quite clunky, even if its ghastly appearance is ignored. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 09:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lechmere (MBTA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Trains2050 ( talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I will be revewing this article over the next few days, please see the table bellow on my progress in the review. Thank you for nominating this article Trains2050 ( talk) 08:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | seems good |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | seems good |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Seems good |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Seems good |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | seems good |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | very good coverage |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | sticks to the topic |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | seems good |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | no edit wars currently |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | good alt text and own work |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | all good |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold until changes are made
|