Talk:63rd Street lines/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• The piping of Cross-platform interchange to "meet" is a bit of a WP:EASTEREGG and should be rewritten.
  • Done.

Extent and service

• Overall I found this section very difficult to understand. Maybe I need to have a fresh look in the morning or maybe it's just inherently different to verbally describe the alignment of the lines.
  • @Adabow: Yes, it is a very complex description. There are two lines, and they have different "chaining" (i.e. they are measured from different starting points, under different "divisions" of the subway). Would a map help? epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I think the new introductory and improved concluding paragraphs make this section easier to approach. A map would be very helpful, especially for readers who aren't familiar with the subject. Adabow (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• The fact that the two lines meet at Lexington Avenue–63rd Street station is only stated in the lead and in the image caption, as far as I can tell. All information must be in the main prose.
  • Fixed.
• Is there a reason Sixth Avenue isn't wikified?
  • This has been linked. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Background

• Perhaps History is a better name for this section?
  • Done.
• Transit Authority and The New York Times should be spelled out in full and linked on the first occurrence.
  • Done.
• Both "Transit Authority" and NYCTA are used. Do they refer to the same thing? If so, pick one abbreviation and stick with it.
  • Yes, and done.
• "Some groups" and "other groups" are weasel words
  • I have specified the groups. By the way, WP:WEASEL says that "some" and "other" would only be weasel words if they were unsupported attributions. I just took these words from the original article. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• "Other groups supported the 63rd Street proposal, though, saying that such a connection would worsen congestion on the already busy IRT Lexington Avenue Line." – makes it sound as though their preferred 63rd Street proposal would cause worsening congestion
  • Fixed - it was the 61st Street transfer that would be problematic. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• "with tunneling westward in Queens, as well as in both directions under Welfare Island (now called Roosevelt Island)." – this is awkwardly phrased
  • Removed "Welfare Island".
• A lot of the converted units are written quite awkwardly. For example, "38-foot-square (12 m)" should probably be rewritten as 38-foot (12 m) square or 38-foot-square (12-m square). Similar comments apply to conversions after words like high and wide.
  • Done, though this wording was a built-in function of {{convert}}. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Interesting. There must be a way for the template to output conversions in a neater way... Adabow (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• The big block quote about the June 1985 delay should be paraphrased
  • Done.
• "The connector was expected to be open by January 2001.[82] However, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks delayed the opening of the connector." – something must have happened before September to delay the January opening.
  • The January date was for limited off-peak reroutes, and the connector was supposed to open for daily service in August or September. I've added that. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• Some of the references use Fulton History as an archive site. You don't need to credit Fulton History in the reference, as it's not their work. Furthermore, some of the FH links don't work for me; they are not required if they are dead.
  • I fixed the links, and added |via=Fultonhistory.com. I know it technically doesn't have to be credited, but this seems like a pretty minor issue, so I'm leaving it for now. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

External links

• The first external video link doesn't seem to be from a source likely to hold the copyright of the video
  • Removed.

Summary

I have listed a few minor issues. I will put the review on hold until they are addressed. Adabow (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   first section isn't easy to read at the moment

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   some weasel words need rewriting

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   external video link which looks dodgy

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   on hold, awaiting some improvements
   Looks good now. I will pass the GA review. I strongly suggest a map is added to the section describing the route alignments, if possible. Otherwise, great work! Adabow (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)