Talk:R (New York City Subway service)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ComplexRational (talk · contribs) 16:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll take a look at this for my first GA review.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
The references are mostly correct and reliable, and are present for all statistics, dates, and quotes. I do have several minor concerns that I wrote out below; once they are addressed, I can give a pass for both 2b and 2c.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
There is not much more to say besides history and the current service pattern. I have read various complaints about poor service (e.g. delays, long trips) on the R line, though from the sources I can find, no substantial content is really lacking - if anything, one or two sentences will suffice.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No major problems, though I found two instances of slight digression that can be addressed fairly easily, see below.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
All are tagged as own work or in the public domain, looks good.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@ComplexRational: Thanks for taking this up. epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Thanks for taking this up. @Epicgenius:, I can handle the review so you can focus on your countless reviews if you want. I did nominate this, but thank you for the help. I appreciate it. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and AmericanAir88: No problem, glad to help. ComplexRational (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and AmericanAir88: After a final read-through, everything looks good - all the criteria are fulfilled, so I am passing this article. Congratulations! ComplexRational (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

2b and 2c

On July 10, 1919, service was extended to 57th Street–Seventh Avenue with the opening of that station.

Ref 4 (erictb.info) is very descriptive, and appears factually accurate judging by the other refs, though it appears to be someone's personal website (WP:SPS?) and the author's credentials are not clear. I'd give it a pass as long as there are other sources present (which, for the most part, is so).

Done, Added ref. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current R service is the successor to the original Route 2 of the Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation.

The history of service changes is well-cited, though none of the sources appear to explicitly describe the BMT Route 2 - this should have a citation.

Done, Added ref. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The route was labeled the RR "Fourth Avenue Local via Tunnel".

Ref 9 (A History of the R train, September 2010) appears to support the quoted label, though its attribution is unclear.

Done, Added ref and ref 9. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On December 21, full service was restored between Manhattan and Brooklyn after the Montague Street Tubes were drained.

Ref 42 (Second Ave. Sagas) looks accurate and it is corroborated by refs 41 and 43, though it is a blog (WP:BLOGS) and I am unsure if it makes a suitable reference. As the statement is also supported by refs 41 and 43, its verifiability is not really of concern, though I would like clarification.

@ComplexRational:

Done, I removed the Second Avenue Sagas reference anyway. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...the tunnel re-opened a few weeks early, on September 15, 2014, and $58 million under budget.

Refs 48 (The R Roars Back) and 50 (R Train To Resume Service) contradict each other on the budget. The former states a few weeks ahead of schedule and $58 million under budget. while the latter states Officials said the project came in under budget by $30 million - which of these values is correct, or are they both estimates?

ComplexRational (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, The exact value of how much under budget might not be that important in this article. I have removed it. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88 and Epicgenius: All changes look good; now it is a definite pass for 2b and 2c. Only that last change for 3b needs attention right now. ComplexRational (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3b

As part of the reroute plan, F service along Queens Boulevard was discontinued during late nights (1 a.m. to 5 a.m.) and F trains were cut back to 57th Street on the Sixth Avenue Line during late nights.

These two statements can be combined to ensure that the focus remains on late-night R service; where the F goes during that time is less important.

Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph starting with Two service plans were identified prior to a public hearing on February 25, 1988...

There is borderline too much detail on the E train here. As it is an important part of the 1988 service changes, it should not be completely removed, though make sure that the main focus is on the changes in R service rather than E service.

@Kew Gardens 613: Can you take a look at this? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: When I have a chance.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613 and ComplexRational: OK, I took a shot at addressing this. epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. There still is room for further explanation, though it satisfies criterion 3b. ComplexRational (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]