Talk:Astor Place station/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review this one. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Built for the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT), the Astor Place station was constructed as part of the city's first subway line this needs to be cleaned up, for example The station was built for the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT) as part of the city's first subway line.
  •  Done
• Construction on the segment should this be "..of the segment"?
  •  Done

History

• Wikilink to East Village.
  •  Done
• helped contribute to more development in the East Village why exactly was this?
  •  Added
• had been under construction intermittently since 1874, although work had stopped several times. that final statement is what intermittently means.
  •  Removed
• Wikilink to spur. I think Branch line is the same thing, right?
  •  Added
• a modification was made to Contracts 1 and 2 you previously mention contract 1, but I don't see any previous mention of this contract 2.
  •  Doing... I'm going around and fixing this in other articles. Contract 2 is the contract for work south of City Hall, to Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. Epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm guessing there was no permanent or lasting damage resulting from the flood?
  • That is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• As part of the Adopt-a-Station program it's unclear whether this is related to the fact that the station was one of the 69 most deteriorated. Maybe a little more on the program would help clarify.
  •  Done
• Do we have real prices for the funding of the 1980s renovation?
  • Adjusted for inflation? Sure. I've added these. Epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Station layout

• The platforms were originally 200 feet (61 m) long you previously say they were 225 feet long.
  • There was another extension in 1909-1910 which extended the northbound platform by approximately 20-25 feet. Epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• There's a duplicate Cooper Union wikilink.
  •  Removed
• Whilst looking at some sources I came across some information that you haven't included that might be helpful. On page 31 (p. 396) of this source, there's information on who was contracted to do the brickwork and other designs in the stations. Let me know what you think.
• As above, this new information would mean that this sentence: The decorative work was performed by tile contractor Manhattan Glass Tile Company and faience contractor Grueby Faience Company. could be changed to accommodate the fact that the tiles were manufactured by the American Encaustic Tile Company.
• An he northbound platform was used as a cover image of Billy Joel's 1976 album Turnstiles was shot on the uptown side of the station needs copyediting for typos and also to make sense.
  •  Fixed It was a duplication of text that was already mentioned.
• The station has two entrances, one in each direction how about The station has northbound and southbound entrances for clarity?
  • The problem is that all local stations on the line have northbound and southbound entrances. At this particular station, there is only 1 entrance in each direction. Epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think there is a need to day the railings are "relatively simple".
  •  Done
• The images on the right refer to the entrances as downtown and uptown and not northbound or southbound. Either the captions or the body need to be changed for consistency.
  •  Done

Points of interest

• Overall, I don't think this section adds too much to the article. If you've included it in other articles on stations, then I'm happy for it to stay. Let me know what you think.
  • It's included in some articles for stations, especially in places where there's a high number of nearby points of interest. In this case, Astor Place is fairly close to 2 colleges, 1 of which has their name on some station signs. Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• References all look fine, except from ref 44 to [1]. The title of the article might reveal a bit about their style of reporting (social media appealing), and the Wikipedia article Gothamist suggests it might have a had a rocky history so it would be better to find a different source.
  •  Removed This supplements another source that's already on the page. However, the website is generally reliable; this article was in the Arts and Entertainment section and is written like that to draw attention. Epicgenius (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Images and captions are fine.

@Epicgenius: review complete. Let me know once the issues are addressed. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Thanks for the extensive review. I have fixed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for this. I'll pass for GA now. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Good read. Covers all the areas that need to be covered. Sources are reliable and all the content is cited sufficiently. One issue with a source was discussed and the source was removed. Other issues relating to grammar were addressed. Stable article with no copyvio. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:14, 7 March 2021 (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.