Talk:Duffields station

Please Clean Up Article.

@Pi.1415926535 I have started the merging process, as I'm still new to this, please try to combine the information to the best of your ability for me, thank you, - Wobs100 (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyone else is also welcome to fix it :D. Wobs100 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wobs100: Per WP:CLOSEAFD, this should have been closed by an uninvolved administrator, not you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. Wobs100 (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I will take this into account for the other merge requests & future ones. Wobs100 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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:Duffields station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 07:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pangalau (talk · contribs) 13:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This is my first review, so please be patient with me. Pangalau (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I will serve as the experienced reviewer for this review as part of the June 2026 backlog drive. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is my initial assessment, see my comments below.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Good
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Good
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good
	7. Overall assessment.

• Lead:
  • Improve flow by changing "only one platform is normally used" to "only one is normally used".
  • Improve the wording by changing "The original private-owned station building" to "The original privately owned station building".
  • Repetitions of "original." Change the second use of the word to "The first station building..."
  • Grammatical error by changing "B&O local service was became part of MARC in 1984" to "B&O local service became part of MARC in 1984."

• Station design:
  • Improve consistency by spelling out compass directions. For example, replace "the east portion" with "the eastern section" and use forms such as "eastern section" and "western section" consistently.

• Later stations:
  • Missing punctuation by changing "A study of the NorthPort station was completed in 2015 It called for..." to "A study of the NorthPort station was completed in 2015. It called for..."

• Preservation:
  • Could be more precise the relative time reference of "around that time in "The wooden section collapsed around that time and was removed" with a fixed date if possible.

• Reference/citation checks:
  • According to my own personal liking and not any kind of necessity, I would appreciate having an archive of URLs in the references so that the sources are not lost in the future.
  • Ref 1 checks out
  • Ref 2 checks out, but include page number.
  • Ref 3 checks out, use a more specific link.
  • Refs 4/24 checks out
  • Ref 25a checks out, but why is the URL not included?
  • Ref 26/7c checks out
  • Ref 36 checks out, but include page number.
  • Refs 7d/18c checks out

• Other stuff:
  • Most improvements are minor copyedits rather than substantive rewrites.
  • Words that may introduce bias are checked.
  • Coverage is sufficient.
  • Focus is met. However, slightly detail-heavy in places but appropriate.
  • Neutrality is strongly met with no bias detected.
  • Stability is met with no signs of dispute or volatility.

Well done! There are some minor issues but, once sorted out, I will be happy to pass it. Pangalau (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pangalau: Hi! I will serve as the experienced reviewer for this review. WP:GANI#R3 states If the problems are easy to resolve, you should be bold and fix them yourself. This includes correcting typos, making minor copyedits, and repairing formatting. Since you already have a good idea for what exact changes to make, I suggest that you be bold and do the minor copyedits yourself. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheVoicelessWriter: Thank you very much for your assistance!! I have made all the necessary changes (mostly minor) that I suggested to be made in the article. This article seems ready to me. Pangalau (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

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.