Talk:Lechmere station

Lechmere station 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.

Lechmere station 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 11, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
March 17, 2023	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 28, 2022.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Lechmere station was proposed for replacement in 1924 – yet was in use until 2020?

Current status: Good article

Greater Boston Public Transit High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Greater Boston Public Transit WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of public transportation in the Greater Boston metropolitan area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Greater Boston Public TransitWikipedia:WikiProject Greater Boston Public TransitTemplate:WikiProject Greater Boston Public TransitGreater Boston Public Transit
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).

Trains: Stations / Streetcars Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

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 Streetcars (assessed as Mid-importance).

Requested move 1 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Please assist in creating any new redirects that may prove helpful. Dekimasuよ! 04:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:USSTATION, stations without the need for disambiguation should be named "xxx station", and ones requiring it should be named "xxx station (disambiguator)". This list is in alphabetical order first of Category:Green Line (MBTA) stations, and then lists Category:Silver Line (MBTA) stations in alphabetical order. Daybeers (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support as obvious and helpful. A few do need tweaking:
- Babcock Street, Hawes Street, Newton Centre, Newton Highlands, Riverway, and Woodland (the other article is a redirect to a section of this one) shouldn't need disambiguation.
- Washington Square may (or may not) need to be distinguished from West Fourth Street–Washington Square (New York City Subway). Washington (MBTA station) will very likely need reworking (which I can do) once the moves are done.
- The two Union Square stations can probably be distinguished by geography since they're physically and temporally separated
- Summit Avenue needs the same disambiguation as St. Paul Street to distinguish it from Summit Avenue (MBTA Green Line "B" Branch station) (which I plan to expand into an article someday). Its siblings Fordham Road (MBTA station), Greycliff Road (MBTA station), and Mount Hood Road (MBTA station) - the first of which will need disambiguation - should also be added to this list.
- Boston University Central needs its suffix.
- City Point should be City Point Bus Terminal per here
- Watertown Yard doesn't need "station" at all - the article is really more about the yard than the station.
- Griggs Street/Long Avenue shouldn't have spaces around the slash per the MOS.

Thanks for all your hard work in proposing this! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Should these be added/changed now? –Daybeers (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's probably best. As proposer, you can make the judgement call on Washington Square. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over your suggestions, I'd like to make a few notes.

I was inclined to add disambiguation to Newton Centre and Newton Highlands because articles exist at Newton Centre Railroad Station and Newton Highlands Railroad Station, both of which redirect to Newton Railroad Stations Historic District. Are those articles needed?

I decided to add disambiguation to Washington Square.

What do you suggest for geographical disambiguation for the two Union Square stations? Perhaps Union Square station (Boston) and Union Square station (Somerville, Massachusetts)?

Fordham Road, Greycliff Road, and Mount Hood Road shouldn't be moved because that would create a double redirect. New redirects can just be created at Fordham Road station (MBTA), Greycliff Road station, and Mount Hood Road station. The (very few) links to those articles can just be changed, and then the articles with the old disambiguation can be deleted.

The other points have been fixed. Thanks for the input! –Daybeers (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Thoughts? I created the new redirects I named above. –Daybeers (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Kenmore Station is ambiguous with Cleveland.Theoallen1 (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just because Kenmore station redirects to Kenmore station (GCRTA). Based on pageviews, Kenmore (MBTA station) is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Moving shouldn't be a problem, since there are very few pages that actually link directly to Kenmore station. A hatnote can be added to both articles once moved. –Daybeers (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fordham Road Station needs to be disambiguated, due to multiple NYC subway lines, Metro North, and MBTA.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have its own article, it's just a redirect to Green Line "B" Branch#Stop consolidation, but I moved it from Fordham Road (MBTA station) to Fordham Road station (MBTA). –Daybeers (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support in general, with the assumption that nom and others will follow through with cleaning up any imperfections that result from the list. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:USSTATION, WP:COMMONNAME, and the naming criteria.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see why we wouldn't follow the naming convention. Grk1011 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear-cut case of following local conventions and the WP:AT policy. —seav (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per USSTATION. I would also prefer that, for both the titles in this move as well as the titles that were previously moved, "XXX station (MBTA)" be redirected to "XXX station"-style titles in order to aid article navigation. epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Timeline

{{Lechmere timeline}} is inaccessible and hard to parse even for a sighted person. What would be some better ways to convey this information? Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The major service shifts - 1922, 1931, 1960s, and the chaos of the 1970s and 1980s - can probably be conveyed with a few sentences of prose, as can the handful of changes this century. We don't have to elaborate on every single service change, especially during the early MBTA years where they changed terminals frequently. I'm planning to write the full histories of the GLX and its stations at some point - probably when the station designs are 100% finalized later this year - and I'll definitely replace this timeline then if not sooner. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Station status

@Pi.1415926535: Sorry, but I have to object to your changes to the article lede. The station still exists and is in service for the same customers, even though train service has been replaced by bus service at the present location. Yes, a new station is under construction and that should be mentioned early in the intro, but that is not the primary meaning of "Lechmere station" at the present time. It is still listed as a functioning station by the MBTA [1], which is of course a reliable source. I do not object to the photo of the under-construction station as the lede photo, as it is arguably more interesting than a couple of trains or buses and can be updated periodically to reflect progress.--agr (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnoldReinhold: I see your point, and I've rewritten the lede to balance the future and former stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks.--agr (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 03:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:
· · ·

Some copy changes, one minor issue with a source, and you'll be good to go. You might find more given how long it's been! 7-day hold. Ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy changes

Lead

The surface station was closed on May 24, 2020 missing DATECOMMA
- Done

Station design

The platform is 8 inches (200 mm) high for accessible boarding on current LRVs, and can be raised to 14 inches (360 mm)... — drop this comma, see User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences. Future errors of this type are denoted (C in S)
- Done

History

north end of the viaduct, but rejected — remove comma (C in S)
- Done
Unlike the Commonwealth Avenue, Beacon Street, and Huntington Avenue, the Cambridge Street and Bridge Street lines did not have dedicated medians, — consider adding "lines" after "Huntington Avenue"
- Done
Question: is the Massachusetts Public Service Commission the same as the Massachusetts Public Utilities Commission or is that an error or something actually different?
- It appears that the Utilities Commission replaced the Service Commission in 1919 - see here. I believe the names are correct for the time periods given.
the construction rest of the terminal was already well underway. Is that a missing "of the" I see?
- Done
Cambridge street — capitalize for consistency
- Done
The new terminal was expected to be used by 24,000 passengers daily in each direction, and to increase daily seated capacity through the subway by 8,754 passengers. Drop comma (C in S)
- Done
In 1924, the BERy indicated that Lechmere was "not fitted to be a permanent transfer station, and while being used as such must fail to satisfy", and recommended an extension to a larger transfer station. (C in S) I'd be fine with a comma here if we had "recommending" instead of "and recommended".
- I'm inclined to keep the comma here; because there's a comma in the quote, the comma afterwards makes the sentence structure more clear. I think "recommended" is better to match "indicated".
then follow — should be "then followed"
- Done
This routing was deemed safer by the MBTA due to the fewer turns, though it was "extremely inconvenient to inbound passengers." — sentence fragment, so quote before period. See MOS:INOROUT
- Done
for pedestrian from East Cambridge — pedestrians, plural
- Done
the state begin planning — "began"
- Done
as was elimination of the Union Square Branch and other cost reduction measures — "as were" plural subject
- Done
, and 100% in October 2019 — remove comma (C in S)
- Done
This was delayed in June 2021 to a December 2021 opening, and in October 2021 to a March 2022 opening — remove comma (C in S)
Again, I'm inclined to keep the comma - without it, having four dates in close succession might be difficult to parse. I think the increased clarity outweighs the grammatical misdemeanor.

Source spot checks

I chose 12 of the 156 reference numbers at random for spot checks. All check out; one seems to need a bit of reconciling with the source.

30: Map - Description seems adequate.
33: Cambridge objection to loop track
39: Cost of elevated railway at $100,000
50: Mention of "improved waiting room facilities" in BERy report
63: Opening date (4/23/41) of parking lot
66: 1961 service changes
68: 1984 service changes due to line congestion (in footnote)
86: Inadequacy of streetcars, proposed line rerouting
103: Urban Ring fact sheet with "New Lechmere" as a station
114: 2012 signing of pact
117: One of two references for 2013 MassDOT contract award
148: April meeting mentions 5 of 9 central instrument houses installed (5, not 1, making it different from "a signal instrument house" mentioned in article)
- Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Source 147, the April meeting page 19, specifically calls out the Lechmere house as being installed (and shows a photo). Source 148, the May meeting, mentioned 5 being installed but doesn't mention locations. I think "signal instrument house" is a good term to clarify that it's for the signal system; that phrase is used in the technical provisions (page 11.4-1 etc).

Other

All images are appropriately licensed and have alt text. You know how to steal my heart!
- Someday I'll manage to get alt text added to the GA criteria!
References aren't archived, but I remember from reviewing Green Line Extension that this is your personal choice, so I'm not going to require it here.
Earwig catches names of organizations and things like "Green Line Northwest Corridor"; no significant issues.

Review in progress

@Sammi Brie: Thanks for the detailed review! I've fixed most of the items you've commented on, and replied to the remaining few. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Lechmere station was proposed for replacement in 1924 – yet was in use until 2020? Source: annual report for 1923, closure announcement
- ALT1: ... that a 1924 report said Lechmere station would "fail to satisfy" as a transfer station, but it remained in use until 2020? Source: annual report for 1923, closure announcement
- ALT2: ... that a 1978 plan for Lechmere station called for a 200-foot-wide (61 m) deck with both bus and rail loops? Source: Lechmere Canal and Triangle Area Development Project
- ALT3: ... that Lechmere station was future-proofed with a longer-than-needed platform to avoid a difficult modification later? Source: technical provisions page 12.1-5 (page 389 of the PDF)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rodney Parker

Created by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Looks great! I prefer ALT0 personally. paul2520 💬 22:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]