Talk:IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 08:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the article, and agree that it is about ready for GA. I will make a detailed analysis soon, but the obvious problem with it is the length of the lead. This should introduce and summarise the main points of the article, but clearly fails at this task. I would suggest that you need three or four good sized paragraphs to adequately summarises an article of this length, and you might like to be thinking about that while I check the rest of the article. Done

Thanks for taking this up and I will do that.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you record any actions taken to address any issues raised with comments and possibly the Done template. I am not in favour of striking out the text, as it makes it much more difficult to read at a later date, and it forms an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The External links all check out ok.
There is one problem with the wikilink to Clark Street Tunnel, which is a redirect back to this article. It should be de-linked.

Done

Description

This section should not rely on the lead to provide its overview, so the extent of the line needs to be included here, rather than just in the lead. I have really struggled to understand the first paragraph, and beginning with uncertainty does not seem ideal. I suggest adding the overview to the start of the second paragraph, and moving the first paragraph down to the end of this section.

Done

The south end of the Brooklyn Branch is unclear. Suggest something like "Where the Brooklyn Branch begins (ends?) at its southern end is unclear."

Done

The chaining designations "K" and "M" become "E" seems to me to be techno-speak. What this means needs to be clearly described for the non-railway reader, or reworked in some way.

Done

skip-stop service needs a few words of explanation. Once a reader has followed the link to try to understand such terms, they often do not read the rest of your article.

Done

Clark Street Tunnel

5,900 feet and 3,100 feet need metric conversions, for non-US readers. Suggest {{convert|5900|ft|m}}, etc.

Done

History

Contracts 1 and 2

the structure of the 221st Street was dismantled Suggest this should be "...221st Street station (platforms?) was dismantled".

Done

The 191st Street was not open until January 14, 1911. This should be "did not open" or "was not opened".

Done

There was both local and express service. This would read better as "There were both local and express services".

Done

The final paragraph is a single sentence. There is lots of info in the reference, so another sentence about the cause would fix it.

Done

Dual Contracts

Instead of having trains go via Broadway, before turning onto 42nd Street, before finally turning onto Park Avenue does not read well. Suggest "Instead of trains going via Broadway, turning onto 42nd Street, and finally turning onto Park Avenue" or somesuch, rather than the repeated use of "before".

Done

changed from a "Z" system to an "H" system. Are these technical terms, or do they just describe what it looks like on a map? Needs clarifying.

Done

The first branch would run to the Battery... This sentence runs on and on, with no punctuation. Suggest splitting it.

Done

being located 60 feet below service level. Should this be "surface" level? If not, what does it mean?

Done

Post-unification

lengthened to 514 feet again needs metric conversion.

Done

Switching at a junction north of 96th Street caused delays as trains from the Lenox Avenue Line, which ran local north of 96th Street, switched from the express to the local tracks, while trains from the Broadway Branch switched from the local to the express tracks. is a bit unruly. Suggest "To the north of 96th Street, delays occurred as trains from the Lenox Avenue Line switched from the express to the local tracks, while trains from the Broadway Branch switched from the local to the express tracks." or somesuch.

Done

trains began to run between 242nd Street and South Ferry all times I think that should be "at all times".

Done

with 8-car trains consisting of new R21s and R22s Suggest "new R21 and R22 cars from the St Louis Car Company" to clarify.

Done

During the 1964–1965 fiscal year... Another single sentence paragraph. Suggest combining with previous para. Also needs metric conversion.

Done

was implemented onlynorth Needs a space between only and north, but would be better as "was only implemented north".

Done

New Lots Avenue via the Clark Street Tunnel Another wikilink back to this article.

Done

But Cortlandt Street, which was directly underneath... Remove "But".

Done

There always seem to be a few more issues than expected once you start a review, but most seem fairly easy to fix. Please feel free to question anything that is not clear. I will be checking the refs next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for taking up the review, and for looking thoroughly through it. I think that I have dealt with all of the aforementioned issues. I will not be able to edit tomorrow and Thursday because I will be observing the Jewish holiday of Shavuot. The earliest I can fix any other issues brought up will be on Friday. Thanks again. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one of two minor tweaks to odd words, but it is looking good. Thanks for the speedy response. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

It has not been possible to check all of the references, as a number of them require a subscription to the New York Times newspaper archive, but where possible, I have checked that the references given support the information in the article. There are a few that need attention.

Ref 1 "Average weekday subway ridership" Can you explain how this one works? It contains lots of data, but I cannot find anything that is very similar to the ridership figures quoted in the infobox. Since it was accessed in 2012, I would have expected that the numbers related to 2012 or 2011.

Done

Ref 2 "South Ferry Terminal Project, Environmental Assessment..." Multipage document needs a p=?? to specify page.

Done

Ref 3 "$377,000,000 Spent on Subways in 1918" Links to a blank page.

Done

Ref 4 "Status Report On the Programmatic Agreement..." Multipage document needs a p=?? to specify page.

Done

Ref 5 "Second Avenue Subway Supplementary Draft..." Multipage document needs a p=?? to specify page.

Done

Ref 19 "Aronson, Michael (June 15, 1999)". Returns "this page has vanished" page.

Done

Ref 28 "New Subway Station Open — Also a Short Express Service for Baseball Enthusiasts". Links to an article entitled "Mob burns two Negroes".

More than one article for one link. Done

Ref 29 "Expresses to 221st Street — Will Run...". Links to an article entitled "Oyster boat blows up".

There are multiple articles for that one link. Done

Ref 41 "Most Recent Map of the Dual Subway System ..." I have added p=37.
Ref 45 "Annual report. 1916-1917." Multipage document needs a p=?? to specify page. (Probably the page after the one that displays).

Done

Ref 48 "Open New Subway Lines to Traffic;..." Links to a blank page.

Done

Ref 50 "Subway Stations Opened: Last Three in ..." Links to a blank page.

Done

Ref 51 "Annual report. 1920-1921." Multipage document needs a p=?? to specify page.

Done

Ref 53 "Report For The Three and One-Half Years..." Multipage document needs a p=?? to specify page.

Done

Ref 61 "Annual Report 1964–1965" Is there a missing url?I

It just is not online. I have it in my personal collection and I got the information from there.

That is ok.

Ref 70 "South Ferry Terminal Project PURPOSE..." Multipage document needs a p=?? to specify page.

It says page 1-5.

My mistake - sorry.

Ref 78 "Transit & Bus Committee Meeting December 2016" Multipage document needs a p=?? to specify page.

It already says pages 169-175

My mistake - sorry.

Refs are always a bit of a nightmare, but I hope this list is not too onerous. Congratulations also on the lead, which now serves its proper purpose of introducing and summarising the article.

The formal bit

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See comments above
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See comments above
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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
A picture of one of the trains would be nice, but is not a requirement for GA.

I added some images.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I shall not be available for three days after today, either, so will check back to see how you are doing in due course. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed everything that you have said needs to be fixed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the speedy attention to this review. I agree that all points raised have now been addressed, and am pleased to award your work Good Article status. Well done on an interesting and well-referenced article. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for doing the review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]