Talk:Lake Street Transfer station

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Lake Street Transfer was a double-decked transfer station accommodating two different elevated lines? Source: Graham Garfield
  • ALT1: ... that the Lake Street Elevated was legally obligated to construct a rail station one block east of one that it already had? Source: Graham Garfield
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1540 Broadway
  • Comment: QPQ in progress. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC) QPQ done, pending that nom's QPQ. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Created by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 00:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC).

• - article is new enough, long enough, not a copyvio (short passages similar to source fall under WP:LIMITED). QPQ done. Hook is interesting and is in article. Sourcing is a bit marginal in the sense that the article is extremely reliant on a single source, but it's okay enough for DYK. Hog Farm _Talk 04:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lake Street Transfer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:38, 2 April 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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@John M Wolfson: Almost there. A comparatively small GA, but that's not an impediment; it just needs an alt tag and some comma removals and other cleanup. 7-day hold; ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie I have done all of what you suggested. In the future please feel free to make minor edits yourself; this applies to my featured content candidacies as well. In any event thank you for the quick and succinct review! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Copy changes

• Add a comma before one block away
• respectively constructed in 1893 and 1895 change to constructed in 1893 and 1895, respectively
• Stations were regularly-spaced across the route, and included one on Wood Street Remove hyphen and comma
• Remove comma after remain standing
• Change were removed in the late 1950s to "was" to conform with "wooden material" (singular)

Other

• The image is appropriately licensed but needs an alt tag. |alt=Refer to caption suffices here.
• Earwig mostly catches organization names.
• References archived.