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 Victuallers (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

Egleston (MBTA station)[edit]

(

)

Egleston station in the 1960s

~~... that Egleston (pictured) was, until 1987, a major station on the MBTA's Orange Line?~~

5x expanded by Whoop whoop pull up (talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

This looks like it meets the criteria: expanded within let seven days, just barely above 1500 characters, within policy (claim is substantiated with source and inline citation), hook is in intro, and no copyright problems with the image. I'm not 100% sure this hook will appeal to a wide range of audiences, but I know there are plenty of railfans out there, so I will give the author the benefit of the doubt. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have returned this from prep 3 as I couldn't confirm the hook. The source is very long and not searchable so a page number needs to be provided. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Which source? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The pdf. Gatoclass (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's searchable if you use Ctrl-F. If you're on a mobile device, it's pages 33, 41-42 (buses), 282-283 (streetcars), 284, 317, and 319 (Main Line El/Orange Line). Also, will be adding to citations. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 13:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaand citation fixing now done! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sections of the article text when nominated were tangential information not very related to the actual station that is the subject of the article. After my copyedits it is currently 1458 bytes of readable prose; it needs major additions to be DYK quality and not merely a small bump to reach 1500 bytes. Additionally, this is a poor quality hook; it is neither very interesting, nor is it factually correct. Egleston was not a major station as its contemporaries Dudley and Forest Hills were; Egleston had only four surface routes connecting to it and was not a significant transfer or terminal location. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

After the additional details I added from HAER documentation, the article is now over 3000 bytes and is sufficient quality for DYK. However, an engaging and accurate hook is still needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that Egleston (pictured) was, until 1987, an elevated rapid transit station on the MBTA's Orange Line? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Full review needed, given the extent of the changes since the original review and the new hook. I've added a DYKmake template for Pi.1415926535, who did most of the changes (including many edits and more than doubling the current size), which is why we need a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough, ALT1 short enough and sourced. Who, if anyone, is supposed to be doing the QPQ?--Laun chba ller 01:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Launchballer, why should anyone have to do a QPQ here? The nominator is the only one who might be responsible, and this appears to be said nominator's first DYK. What made you think one would be required? Also, can I ask what checks you did other than length, newness, and the hook? You don't mention any of the "within policy" criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know whether or not the nominator had done one or not and I have a few problems with QPQcheck, given that it currently claims I have 15 DYK credits; I've nominated over 105. I can't see any neutrality issues nor copyright problems. Good to go.--Laun chba ller 10:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not yet reached 5 DYK nominations either, but since it appears I will receive credit for this DYK I have reviewed Kalie Wright. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good of you, but you didn't need to. May I suggest that when you have got 5 DYK credits, review the eldest first? It helps the clear the backlog (and I'm not just saying that because the eldest one is one of mine, BlueMoonset will back me up on it).--Laun chba ller 14:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)