Talk:Line 2 Bloor–Danforth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Quality of the article is good.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   See comment section below. Good.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   See comment section below. Good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See comment section below. Good.

   C. No original research:

   See comment section below. Good.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All major aspects of the topic have been covered.

   B. Focused:

   Article remains focused/on-topic throughout.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   See comment section. "Summary" sections for the pictures has been fixed.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are provided and contain suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See comment section below. Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The images that show the possible route extensions should have a better "summary". Also, regarding the infobox picture, I don't see the station going underground on the left. Can you please clarify?

 Done

• "The earliest mention of rapid transit along along this route was in 1910 report that was prepared by an American firm of transit consultants" should be, "The earliest mention of rapid transit along along this route was in a 1910 report that was prepared by an American firm of transit consultants."

 Done

• "In 1980, the line was extended once again, this time to the current termini of Kipling station in the west end and Kennedy station in the east" needs a reference.

 Done

• "The replacement trim tiles were differently-coloured due to the lack of extra green trim tiles" needs a reference.

 Done

• "The second exit program was created after a fire safety audit revealed several at-risk stations with only one means of access and egress from the subway platform level to the street. Some stations with only one entrance/exit are slated to receive a second means of access/egress during major overhauls such as the station modernization programs at Pape and Dufferin stations" needs a reference.

 Done

• "Construction of a second access route at Broadview station was completed in 2008, when the streetcar loop was rebuilt, and work continues on a second entrance at Castle Frank station" needs a reference.

 Done - ref for Broadway, Castle Frank removed.

• The entire "Kipling to Mississauga" section of the article needs a few references.

 Done - though I'm not sure if the list of stations is for the 2001 plans or the Dundas LRT. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reference number 16 also does not work.

 Done

• Reference number 17 does not work.

 Done

More suggestions may be added above as I continue with the review.--Dom497 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the complete list of what needs to be fixed within the article before I pass it. The article will be on hold for 7 days and nothing is changed by then, I will be forced to fail the article. If you have any questions regarding the review please feel free to post them here or on my talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we use information taken from Transit Toronto? It looks well researched and has some citations, which is unlike most blogs. For any information that has no source, it can be removed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya, Transit Toronto can be used.--Dom497 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by another editor (I was going to review it but missed my chance)

Here are some of the issues I think need addressing.

• History : "along along this route" should be "along this route" (despite suggestion above).

 Done

• "In the 1950s, there was a large debate" needs a ref because it was obviously contentious. (Filey, Mike (1996). The TTC Story. Dundurn Press. p. 111. ISBN 1-55002-244-X. includes a good discussion of the issues).

 Done

• "streetcars from Jane Street to Luttrell Avenue" needs expanding, for those who do not live in Toronto. Why is this significant? Did they run broadly parallel to the route? Is Jane Street near Jane station? Is Luttrell Avenue near another station?

 Done

• "it was determined that Toronto's mid-town area was starting to experience growth". The "it was determined that" is redundant and should be removed.

 Done

• "allowed for a reason for a subway ... to be proposed" needs reworking to make it clearer.

 Done

• "service was interlined" needs explanation. What is interlining?

 Done

• "During this opening," needs rewriting. Does it mean while the line was open, or what?

 Done

• "This solved the issue created by the stations from being a part of multiple fare zones" needs rewriting, to make it clearer. Also, ref 11 only supports the sentence before this one, and makes no mention of multiple fare zones (as far as I can see. I have read most of the document, but it is not searchable).

 Done - expanded and extra ref added.

• Stations : "Other surface and train connections are noted below." They are not.

 Done - sentence removed.

• "either by transfer or fare-paid terminal" needs explanation.

 Done - explanation added.

• Designs : "due to an arson lit fire" needs rewriting.

 Done

• I have read and re-read the third para of Designs, and cannot make sense of it. Suggest re-writing the whole para.

 Done

Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just a note to editors that will be improving the article, please address both my and Bob1960even's suggestions.--Dom497 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A comment by yet another editor

• All the dates in the history section can and should be exact dates, and not just a year. I know I've stumbled upon Toronto Star articles for every opening when I wasn't even trying to. A Toronto Public Library Card will give you access to the back issues of the Star and Globe and Mail via the Books and Research link. Otherwise, I personally wouldn't see this as having broad coverage of the history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done

IMPORTANT: It has been 7 days and there are only a few things left to be fixed. Unfortunately, I can't give extra time and therefore, if all the above suggestions aren't fixed by 4:00 EST, I will have to fail the article. This gives you about 4 and a half hours.--Dom497 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can! "You may put an article "On Hold" for a period of time, generally one week". If there are only a handful of issues and they are actively being resolved, do not fail the article... not sure if this is connected to the GA Drive. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the only thing left on the list is explanation of "either by transfer or fare-paid terminal". I have no idea what it means, so do not know what to do with it. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, because there is only one issue left I'll give you guys a bit more time. :) --Dom497 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now tracked down the meaning of this and updated the article. All issues now addressed, I think. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)