Talk:Scarborough station (Metro-North)

Scarborough station (Metro-North) 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.

Scarborough station (Metro-North) is part of the Briarcliff Manor 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 31, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
May 6, 2015	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Trains: Stations / in New York City Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 30, 2015

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Hudson Valley

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Low-importance).

Comment

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but the information on the track and platform configuration is wrong. The station was recently re-done and this information is outdated.

Bassoon Man The Freak (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scarborough (Metro-North station)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking on this review. I'm a train buff myself, so this should be fun. You should get some feedback soon, but I'm admittedly off-and-on with my reviews. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, awesome. I see you're from New York too, I lived there and I'm now in college in California, but I've met quite a few of New York's WikiProject members at various events. Not sure I've met you though, nice to meet you and thanks for reviewing this.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as you can tell from this article, I'm more the history buff (the article's prose largely pertaining to history), so I still feel the article needs more fleshing out with regard to operations.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you! I have been incredibly lame and have not attended any of the numerous WP:MEET/NYC events. One day, one day.

Before we move forward with the review let's discuss some of these initial concerns. First, I see lots of unreferenced areas in this article. While none of this seems likely to be challenged, verifiability is a must in order to meet the good article criteria. You also mentioned the article may lack operational information. I'd say let's focus on this before I go any further. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I had neglected attending New York events for a while, but once I attended WikiConference USA, I've attended quite a few since; Wikipedians are great in person. So I'd strongly recommend attending one. As for this article, much of the uncited information was added by Bob Little (User talk:BigDisaster), a fellow member of the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society and pretty much the go-to guy for information on Scarborough's train station and post office. He runs a group called "Save Scarborough" which is working towards the refurbishment of the old station house; from what I've heard, there are propositions every year to tear it down.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 01:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear about my involvement. It's not that I'm not willing to help, it's more that as the reviewer, I do so along the way, rather than prepare the article for the review itself. Sloatsburg (Metro-North station), a GA-class article on a Metro-North station, may be good to go off. For the "Facilities" section perhaps reiterate the travel time/distance from Grand Central, along with a rough outline of the schedule, and any other information you may have.

Sources don't necessarily need to be inline, but all information needs to be verifiable. Otherwise I have no way to distinguish it from original research. Unfortunately this will need to be taken care of for the review to pass. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stoatsburg article was useful for improving Scarborough's lede, but that's all I could get from it. Also, I don't see how the article would benefit from restating the travel time to and from GCT, especially in this short of an article. I also added the rough schedule. As for the unsourced information, I tackled it and found sources for some of it and removed the rest. Now there should be nothing preventing you from reviewing this article.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 00:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you noticed I've started the review, but time is against me and I won't have this done today. This should have been done a week ago, I apologize. I'm on wikibreak this Thursday–Sunday, but rest assured I'll have the review for your Monday. Thank you for your patience! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. I of course understand; the holidays are a priority.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Thank you so much for your patience! These past two weeks are probably the busiest out of the year for me. I've completed the review in full:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Concerns

Lead

I’m guessing by "hamlet" we mean Hamlet (place). I was unfamiliar with this term. Should we link this?

done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to bear with me on how strict I am with verifiability. The load of course doesn't require inline citations given the content is repeated and verifiable in the body of the article. I don't see anything about Rensselaer in the body, however (correct me if I'm wrong!).

fixed.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

The Briarcliff Manor village government purchased the station building in 1961, to house... Not sure about the usage of the comma. We need not include it solely to indicate what the inline citation is referring to, if that's the reason.

removed.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with the rest of the Hudson Line, the Scarborough station became... Some of this I was unable to verify, particularly The station and the railroad were turned over to Conrail in 1976, and eventually became part of the MTA's Metro-North Railroad in 1983. This seems fairly straightforward and should be easy to find a source if it is not already repeated elsewhere in the article.

done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's link Arts for Transit. Right now it is a redirect but has potential to be a standalone article, and in fact I think I'll add it to my to-dos :)

good idea; done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link Willet Hauser Architectural Glass

done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

How is Track 1 powered, if not by third-rail?

It's not, diesel trains use track 1. The electric trains only use 2, 3, and 4.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Track 1 is usually used by northbound express trains, while Track 3 is usually used by southbound express trains. I believe you mean Track 2 and not Track 3.

fixed, thanks.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The station layout subsection is unsourced. Much of this seems not WP:LIKELY to be challenged, some of it falling under WP:BLUE in my opinion (the pictures are telling). The only part I'm unsure about is the information about the tracks 1 and 2. Any way to verify which direction they go? If not I think it will be alright, at least to meet GA criteria.

I'll look into this and get back to you; I'm trying to find a suitable source, but it's tough going.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore the templates for discussion notice at the top, not that we could do anything about it. I hate how verbose those are! Overall I think the article is well-written and a pleasurable read. The above concerns should be easily addressable so I am placing the article on hold for now. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y While there are some parts that are still unverifiable, they are trivial and I think we have certainly met the good article criteria. As such I am passing this nomination. Congratulations! Been a pleasure working with you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have a way to solve the unverifiable information problem; I'll implement it as soon as I am able.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

@Ɱ and Epicgenius: I have been removing travel times and frequencies from the lead, along with distance from stations, from multiple articles. The former two vary from timetable to timetable, and Wikipedia is not a guide. The distance from GCT is a trivial fact-someone could check Google Maps if they were curious. There is no reason to specify that EMUs use the station. This info overall makes Wikipedia seem like a guidebook, which it is not. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I don't think this article warrants being GA, given multiple citation issues, lack of information on the station layout, irrelevant details, etc. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, I don't think this article necessarily fails the GA criteria. I do agree that the station layout does need a little work, but I also think the article meets GA criteria for the most part.

Were I a reviewer, I'd recommend trimming the paragraph that begins In April 1931, Siamese King Prajadhipok and Queen Rambai Barni traveled from Bangkok[13] to Ophir Hall (currently Reid Hall of Manhattanville College).. That can probably be cut down into two sentences and be moved to the "Notable passengers" section. I'd also recommend updating the ridership, as rider statistics from as recently as 2018 are available. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't far, far away, but there are several issues with it that would need to be resolved, and I think there is more research that could be done on the history section outside of notable people using it. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I have, and which is why I do more work than is likely strictly necessary for articles I nominate, is that I interpret the "Broad in its coverage" criterion more strictly. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, I think the issue is with broadness vs. comprehensiveness. Broad in coverage just means that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic [and] stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. This article does do that, covering all major changes and renovations. All main aspects of the topic are covered here. What you're aiming for is comprehensiveness, which is an WP:FACR criterion: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. In that sense, the article may need a little work, unless nothing of note happened between 1909 and 1961. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, that sounds good to me. Distance from GCT sounds like it would violate WP:NOTGUIDE. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is more research that could be done on the history section outside of notable people using it. Nine big paragraphs for a tiny station in a tiny town isn't enough? I scoured the far reaches of the internet at the time, I don't think there's more to find, and I think it has a remarkably long/well-documented history for such a tiny little place. I would be surprised if you could find a longer, better-referenced article on a station serving 8,000 or less.

ɱ

(talk) 16:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We may agree to disagree. Omitting all of this info means this article will just tell me the building's history and what service you can get from it. I think knowing the distance from the overwhelmingly main destination is important, as is knowing a general travel time. A rough estimate doesn't hurt, and doesn't even change much over the decades to century. As well, I think it's an important aspect that stations in the more urban areas use electricity, while rural, further-out stations need to rely on diesel locomotives. This station is within the radius of the former scenario. Cutting geographical and operational information just alienates the reader from fully understanding the subject.

ɱ

(talk) 15:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Travel time might overall be the same, but we would be making our own calculations, and again, that is not something that I see fits being in an encyclopedia. A paragraph or mention in the history section could be added to note the date of the line's electrification through the station. As an aside, the stations further out also aren't rural. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And - ec- Kew Gardens 613 - GAs only require one reviewer, and it passed their standards at that time. Information on the station layout is there, what citation issues exist, what details do you find irrelevant? As someone who lived in the area, these details were all pertinent historical/geographical details. You may just need to have the context of the area. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]