Talk:Division station (CTA Logan Square branch)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Division station (CTA Logan Square branch)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 09:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I aim to have the review complete within the next few days. If you would like to return the favour, I have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airport Central railway station/archive1 open right now. Steelkamp (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

Well written

• one of the several branches of the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad. Change to one of several branches of the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad.
  • Done.
• including the Logan Square branch on which Division lay. This reads confusingly to me? Is there any way it can be reworded.
  • Decided that Division's presence wasn't needed in the first place.
• and formally merged into the Chicago Rapid Transit Company (CRT) in 1924. Is this saying the Metropolitan merged into the CRT in 1924 or the Chicago Elevated Railways merged into the CRT?
  • The Metropolitan; I hope the body explains it well.
• and indeed had built much of its structure under the assumption that locomotives would be used. Should that be steam locomotive? Diesel and electric locomotives exist.
  • I assumed that steam would be inferred given the opening of the sentence (and, AFAIK, diesel locomotives didn't really exist in the 1890s); that said, I've linked steam locomotive.
• After the war ended, work resumed on the Dearborn subway and it opened at the midnight beginning Sunday, February 25, 1951. It's not explicitly stated that the Logan Square branch and Division station closed on February 25, 1951.
  • Looking at it again, the CTA had no interest in operating ... the old Logan Square elevated ... the Logan Square branch south of Damen would be closed after the subway opened might not imply an immediate closure of the old elevated, so I've tried to add something to that effect without being too clunky. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• at the beginning of the year where ridership was recorded. What does this mean?

Verifiable with no original research

I'll check this tomorrow. Steelkamp (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing looks good, I'm glad there are newspaper and book refs and the the Chicago-L.org is kept to a minimum. Spot checks done on reference 6, 13, 18, 22, 38. No problems there.

Broad in its coverage

• There's no location in infobox?
  • Neither contemporary sources nor even Graham Garfield give an address, I'm afraid. All I know is that it was somewhere between 1700 and 1735 West Division Street with an odd-number address. (EDIT: I've added an incomplete address, but I feel that it's almost worse than nothing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    • I think what you've done there is an improvement. Steelkamp (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there is too much detail in the first paragraph of the body not relating to Division station. Why does the part about steam vs electric traction need to be in this article?
  • Trimmed.
• I feel the same way about large parts of the Closure and demolition section. There's just so many sentences that don't really have anything to do with Division station and would suffice being in other articles. Can you remove some details?
  • Trimmed.
• On January 9, 1903, Mary Burke, the station agent on duty, was robbed of $35 ($1,100 in 2021) by three men. Shortly thereafter, a former bill poster for the Metropolitan was arrested in connection with the robbery and confessed to it, but refused to name his accomplices. I don't think this is important enough to include.
  • It's an interesting tidbit about an otherwise-unremarkable neighborhood station, and more importantly a DYK hook. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't think it is important enough to include. Steelkamp (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I've requested a third opinion at WT:STATIONS. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • In my opinion, it's not all that interesting and probably not worth including. It doesn't have anything to do with the station except the location, and it's probably not even the only robbery that happened there. When I see "Accidents and incidents" at a station article, I'm expecting a derailment, or someone getting pushed on to the tracks, etc. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly makes a refreshing change to see an "incident" rather than just a list of accidents. I see no reason why it should be removed.

The value stated for 2021 should be updated. The robber is stated to be an employee of 'the Metropolitan', by which I take it that he was a railway company employee — this could be clearer. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I received both opinions so I will pass the review as is and any further conversation about this can go on the talk page. Steelkamp (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated, if possible

General

• @Steelkamp: Thank you for your comments, and nice work on Airport Central! If you are so inclined, I would be much obliged if you could also GA review my Marshfield station; it's a lot more complicated than Division and I'd really appreciate comments on how to present and arrange all the information for an eventual FAC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]