Talk:Accessibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority/GA1

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this one, too, since I might as well. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Vami_IV. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! Vami_IV.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: I am ready for comments whenever you are. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: I am not sure if you saw my comment above.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I'm just on a short break from GANs to do some content creating and ~~cooling my blood in the midst of present circumstances~~. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take all the time you need. Thanks for your reviews.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I apologize for making you wait for so long, but now I'm going to carry out this review. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I have added additional comments since the last ping. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note on article size

The total size of this article, as of writing this note, is 132,279 bytes. That in mind, I will be making suggestions with the objective of chipping away at total article size. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Vami IV, you opened this review over three months ago, and haven't started it yet. If you don't think you can get back to the review soon and complete it in a reasonably prompt manner, perhaps it would be best if we found another reviewer to conduct the review. Please let us know what your plans are. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin and carry out this review within the week. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The first sentence is a little odd to me. It reads "Physical accessibility on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority" rather than "of", like the title. Consider: "The physical accessibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's public transit network is incomplete."
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the key tenets of the Fast Forward Plan [...] What is this? It's only mentioned here in the lead.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citation [1] should be moved out of the lead and into the prose; Footnote [a] is fine.
- Where would you suggest I move it?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"~~Context Background" should have more context background; what is the ADA and what are its circumstances? Are there any specific to New York City or the MTA?~~
Reading on, I found a lot of that background in "Rapid transit". What is background information there should be moved into "Background", with the information I requested above.
- Done Is this better? I feel like the required features for ADA stations should be in a different section.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if you renamed the overall section "Accessibility" and made a "Background" subsection? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering this article is about accessibility, I am not sure whether it would make sense to have a section titled accessibility. Do you think it makes sense to split off a history section?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

It seems much of the context I was looking for is in this section.

~~The MTA has been criticized for the lack of accessibility, particularly in the New York City Subway. Could you shorten "lack of accessibility" to "inaccessibility"?~~
- Done epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] only half, or 62 neighborhoods [...]~~
- Done epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[...] and none of the stations being renovated under the Enhanced Station Initiative, [...] Make this its own sentence. The one it is presently in is already very long, and right here is the natural point to divide it.
- Done epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] at the Middletown Road station during the 2014 renovation of that subway station. Condense.~~
- Done epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[...] is only accessible through a ramp at a southern side platform, and is only open during special events. Is this ramp only accessible during special events?
- Done epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which one is only open during special events. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both the platform and the ramp that leads to it. epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] was formerly non-accessible until 2013 [...] Condense to "was inaccessible until 2013".~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] hired at Andy Byford's request [...] Who is this?~~
- Done epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid transit

~~Can you make the tables collapsible? They are quite large.~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] to expand the Key station obligation [...] Why is "key" capitalized here?~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~In 1994, the list of 54 stations to be completed by 2010 [...] Not 2020? This is the first time the year 2010 is mentioned in the article.~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] the New York Public Buildings Law and Transportation Law. If these are separate laws, then I recommend "the New York Public Buildings and Transportation Laws".~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island Railway

~~The first sentence in each of these sections needs citation.~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~The Bronx is still missing one.~~ –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Footnote F needs a citation, or deletion.~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Article passes CopyVio with 26.5% percent. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References are reliable. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are relevant to the article and free/tagged. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hiiii @Epicgenius and Vami IV: any progress on this? It’s been more than 3 months Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am in favor of closing this review as a quick-fail. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Vami IV: I have been very busy, but just addressed most of the concerns you had. I will also add additional sources to bolster the background section. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Vincent60030 and Kew Gardens 613: I'd agree with Vami here. I would recommend closing this nomination just so KG613 could renominate the page if he chooses, and hopefully receive a faster nomination. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV, it's up to you, but if you are going to close it (as a regular fail; quickfail is when you fail the article immediately due to the reasons listed in the Good article criteria), you should do so. You're the reviewer; the decision is entirely yours, and can be made at any time you feel appropriate. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (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.