Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmonds station (Washington)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2018 [1].

Edmonds station (Washington)

Nominator(s): Sounder Bruce 04:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fairly normal train station in an American suburb, with Amtrak and commuter train service. It has been rebuilt three times on the same site and has seen train service come and go over the past 120 years. I hope that this article can form the backbone of a future Good topic on commuter rail stations in the Seattle region. Sounder Bruce 04:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:GN_Railway_station_and_residence_in_Edmonds,_Washington.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture was taken in 1925, but I don't know when it was first published. The library's collection says it came from the studio's archives, but I can't find anything more than that. Sounder Bruce 06:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Okay, so how do we know it was published in the date range given in the tag and without copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is this point resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Squeamish Ossifrage

I haven't previously reviewed (or examined, really) any of our train station articles, so it's entirely possible that some of my concerns have been accepted by the community. If so, I'll be happy to be informed of it. But that notwithstanding:

Let's start off with the name. Is this "Edmonds", a station? Or is it "Edmonds Station"? Sources seem split on the issue (along with a few other options). The Travel Washington site gives a clear image of the signage at the station though, which certainly reads "Edmonds Station" to me. Is there a reason why you opted for the format you did?
- The article uses the WP:USSTATION naming convention, which prefers the lowercase form since it does not include the word station in its proper name on platform signage (picture).
§Description lists quite a few amenities (ticket machines, waiting shelters, restrooms) that seem like they would be assumed to be a part of a train station. Indeed, what seems to be the relevant notability essay provides that "listing ... every ordinary or mundane facility may be considered excessive", calling out toilet facilities specifically as unlikely to be notable for inclusion (and being the subject of past editor disputes). I'm not certain of the acceptance level of that essay but, to me, its argument is compelling.
- Some of the amenities listed (restrooms, non-ticket vending machines, a staffed waiting room) are unusual for a commuter rail station, so I think it warrants mention.
Near the end of §Description, you have a spaced em dash. You can either use a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash, but not what you have.
- Changed to a regular, unspaced em dash.
"A formal investigation of stations across Snohomish County by the Washington State Railroad Commission in 1909 led to a court order for Great Northern to improve their depots, including a modernized depot for Edmonds at James Street, which the railroad appealed and lost." This construction is awkward, and on first read suggests that the railroad appealed the depot (rather than the court order).
- Reordered the last bit.
§Early stations: Any appropriate link target for "shingle mills"?
- Added a piped link to wood shingle
"railroad paraphernalia"? I honestly have no idea what this is implying.
- Changed to "knock-knacks"; paraphernalia was the wording in the source, so I went with it.
That paragraph also has a flow problem. You announce its opening, then talk about trains serving it, then describe it, then talk about trains serving it again (or, in this case, the lack thereof). Consider reworking it such that the description comes before train service?
- Reordered.
§Modern depot and Amtrak: The section about Railpax is confusing as written. You introduce the Railpax plan with its purpose of "operat[ing] unprofitable transcontinental passenger services that railroads sought to cut", so the expectation for the reader is that Railpax would seek to preserve lines through this station. But in the next sentence, you describe how Railpax actually shut down service to this station. In isolation, both of those sentences are true, but the wording needs to be addressed to avoid a bait-and-switch for the reader there.
- Reworded to emphasize the Railpax was about consolidating redundant private lines, which meant that some corridors had to go.
Do sources say who maintained the station in the absence of passenger service? Railpax? Burlington Northern?
- Clarified that Burlington Northern kept maintenance of the passenger side.
"...passenger service. Passenger service..." Rework to avoid back-to-back use of this phrase.
- Broken up.
"Edmonds, ... was slated to lose [services] at Edmonds station ..." [emphasis mine]. In principle, I think the first "Edmonds" there is intended to be the city, but since you refer to the station as "Edmonds" quite a bit, the repetition seems tautological.
- Fixed.
Any idea why Amtrak left it in service?
- Newspaper article says the following:
  - The Edmonds train station is not among those slated to be closed or automated, Amtrak officials decided last week. "The revenue production has been good" there, said Art Lloyd, Amtrak's director of corporate communications.
So, it was designated a high-speed rail corridor in 1992, which required raising the train speed. But that was opposed by locals in the 1980s? I'm pretty sure I know how the sequence of events actually worked (that is, it was discussed well before the official designation). But that's not what the article says.
- The speed debate was started because of the normal Amtrak trains (headed east to Chicago, not on the Vancouver corridor), but later encompassed the Cascades trains.
§Commuter rail: In this section, and this section only, you suddenly start calling the city the "City of Edmonds".
- Changed to "city government"
"The multimodal project, named "Edmonds Crossing", was evaluated in the 1990s and a preferred alternative was chosen in 1998..." As written, this makes it sound as though an alternative [to the Edmonds Crossing project] was chosen. But then it turns out that's not what happened.
- Reordered the sentence to emphasize that it was the choosing of a "preferred location"
What or where is "Point Edwards"?
- Added a general location description, but I think it would be better served with a link to a yet-to-be-created article.
Link commuter rail?
- Done.
References: Print sources accessed online do not require access dates. The idea is that Google books or other online reproductions of a print sources are essentially convenience links. And while web-exclusive content can change at any time, print... doesn't.
- I've seen Google Books links get updated or removed from time to time, so I've kept it just in case. I can remove it if it really is an issue.
You're not real consistent about whether you link publishers and publications. There are three ways to do this (link 'em all–or at least all that would bluelink, link on first appearance only, don't link), but consistency is important. For example, you tend to link Amtrak in the references, but not other publishers. And then there are those two redlinks at the end of the list.
- Removed the extra Amtrak link, which brings all references up to links at first appearance only; also created two redirects for those red links.
I am concerned about how much information is cited to non-independent sources. To a certain extent, citing Amtrak or Sound Transit is to be expected here. But, for example, as another other than Amtrak itself discussed the station's Modernist architectural elements?
- There doesn't seem to be other accessible sources on the station's design, though I am able to cite a newspaper article that describes the windows and Modernist style.
HistoryLink's formal name is HistoryLink.org Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, which it recommends for use in references.
- The short form hasn't been deemed an issue before; I prefer it, as other references use short forms (e.g. Amtrak, Sound Transit).
The model railroad association that occupies a room in the station isn't notable enough to warrant a name-drop in the text; why do they get an external link?
- Removed.
Regarding the licensing problem raised by Nikkimaria above: This is the library's current (and more verbose) description of the Juleen Studio Collection. Some, but not all, of the images in the collection were previously published (as, for example, postcards). If this image was not previously published, then the image entered the public domain in July 2005, 70 years after the death of John Juleen. On the other hand, if it was published as a postcard (or anything else) it would be in the public domain unless there was a notice and registration, and that registration was renewed by the studio. I can't confirm that Juleen did include a notice of copyright on the images he published as postcards (example here from the secondary collectibles market); so the burden is likely on the editor to confirm that there was not both a formal registration and a renewal of copyright (although I consider it very unlikely that there was both registration and renewal here). Absent that determination, you'll need to play it safe and treat this as potentially non-free media.

- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks for the review. I've answered your questions above to the best of my ability. For now, I'll remove the Juleen image and send an e-mail to the library to determine its copyright status. Sounder Bruce 04:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Just checking in again. Does it look better? Sounder Bruce 05:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Apologies for the slow response. Travel and this project don't always cooperate. I don't see any fatal problems here. I would really like to see the historical photo back, even if you have to license it as non-free media, but the article as it stands certainly checks all the criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AmericanAir88

Support Fantastic Job AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Laser brain

Sources are fine, and formatting is fine. I did note the large number of older sources that list "p. 1". Is this a one-sheet? Is the real page number unavailable, or simply all the articles were on the front page? Just verifying we got the correct page numbers here. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laser brain: The newspaper is indeed multipage (usually 5-8 per issue) and the page numbers are direct from my scanned copies. Sounder Bruce 13:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo

I mostly look at 1c/2c Fifelfoo (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A number of PRIMARIES are used, I am not concerned by their use here: I believe their use is appropriate from sampling and reading the full text.
~~I am kind of surprised that there isn't a HQRS from the Railfan community? Given your awareness, is this an area that has not encouraged HQRS production from among that knowledge community?~~
- I haven't been able to find, let alone obtain, many reliable sources regarding railroads in the Northwest. There are a few indexes of stations and other tidbits, but that's about it unless I want to muck around with self-published books.
~~For a 40K population I don't expect a relevant local history on this topic, but did you double check for local histories held at Edmonds library for example?~~
- Several of the sources used were donated or referred to by the Edmonds Historical Museum, so I think I've done my due diligence in finding sources.
Varieties of English issue: depot for me as an Australian English speaker connotes a holding or loading or servicing place for trains, is this true? If so, ought the depot to be made more of in the appropriate section? The picture seems to indicate a solid "yes."?
- @Fifelfoo: In American English, depot is used interchangeably with station, though often in a historical sense (e.g. current stations are just stations, but historic stations may be called a depot). Sounder Bruce 12:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you believe the weight applied to the depot in the appropriate section is relevant to the article regarding the station? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've cut out a few instances outside of the 1910-56 section. Sounder Bruce 22:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the quality of writing

Weak support from Ian

Like Fifelfoo, I think the writing is good, so only a very light copyedit from me. It seems quite comprehensive as well, and I'll take Nikki's and Andy's image/source reviews as read. The "weak" support is because I didn't really get a feeling from the article as to what makes this a particularly notable train station, though given what appears to be a reasonable amount of info from third-party sources, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it doesn't meet WP:NOTE guidelines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There's a duplink in Commuter rail and several in the Services section -- I wouldn't think the article is long enough to warrant them so pls review/rationalise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, it's a rather ordinary station; at best, it's noted for its Modernist architecture, as oppose to other historic stations. I have removed all but two duplinks (which I feel are needed to maintain standalone comprehension for the Services section). Sounder Bruce 04:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.