Talk:Unbuilt plans for the Second Avenue Subway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skyes(BYU) (talk · contribs) 16:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be high quality after a quick read-through. I begin to look through sources more carefully later today. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1919–1941: Initial planning

These are all just observations I have made looking at the article and sources with a fine-toothed comb. I don't claim to be 100% correct, in fact, I'd love if you could prove me wrong. I couldn't access article from TimesMachine so I had to take your word for it on those. I don't have an extensive knowledge of the subject matter, which I think will make me a more neutral reviewer, though it might take me some time to complete this review.

Reference pages for reference 4 are either incorrect or unclear. Are you citing the map in the back? I don't know how the reference pages could be 22-25 if the text only goes to page 19.

You cite the date September 15, 1929, which I don't find in either of the articles you cited (footnotes 3 and 10).

Some of the things you add in the article don't appear to be sourced, and while they may be correct, everything has to be sourced, even if it seems obvious or common knowledge. If you disagree with this, please let me know, I would be happy to chat about it a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyes(BYU) (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyes(BYU): I fixed the first two issues.
Your third issue, that "everything has to be sourced", is not necessarily correct. I think the guideline for this is WP:BLUE: The Good Article criteria merely state that inline citations are required 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". While that covers much, most, or possibly even (in the case of biographies of living people) all content in an article, it does not imply that you must cite everything everywhere for every single article, period. In this case, I do put the citations at the end of every paragraph, and the citations in the article all support the preceding content back to the previous citation. The exception is the lead, but as per the guideline WP:CITELEAD, I put the citations all in the body so that the lead is not clogged up with citations. Sorry to be such a nitpicker about this particular issue, but it's just that I checked that every detail was referenced in the body before I added it to the lead. epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first good article review, so I appreciate that information, it will help me a lot in this review and subsequent ones. I will continue to look at the page a little longer, but I am certain that I will pass it. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

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

Fantastic, high-quality article. Well researched, well-written. Sources are reliable. Neutral.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Impeccable grammar. A couple of small punctuation clarifications that I just fixed myself.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: