Talk:Bx12 bus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll do my best reviewing this article over the next few days although its been request for a nomination for a while. So @Kingsif: I would need your help just in case.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi (your ping didn't work because it needs to be signed when you add it) - I can help guide you through this again, but I don't know if the nominator will be very responsive at the moment. Pinging @Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius:, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I will try to be as responsive as I can be. Thanks. This one should not be too hard to do.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Checking in on progress here, since it's been just over a week. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I should be able to deal with several of the issues shortly.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

So, Happypillsjr, questions for reviewing this. Start with illustration again, kind of subjective but visual:

• There's a hatnote - is it appropriate?
• Is the infobox suitable in general and for the specific kind of article (NY bus)?

Yes

• Are the images appropriately licensed?

The images are self work, yes.

• Are the images used well - do they illustrate something in the text or otherwise add to the article for a reader?

The images uses very well and it adds up in sections

• Is the route map complete?

yes, I rode this bus a couple times.

• Does the stops map work, is it clear?

The map work is clear.

• Is the station table understandable?

Kingsif (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: I'll finish up the review below.

• Lead good, some recent expansions fill it out to a fair length
• Images good, though it does take a minute to work out the limits of the dark-colored stop map. I think it might work better if it's black-on-white, if possible?
• Table clear, infobox fine
• Sources are reliable and everything has an appropriate inline citation
• Route description looks fine
• Will pick back up on the other sections tomorrow Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• History:
  • Maybe move This was the last Union Railway franchise to be constructed to somewhere later, it's currently at the end of the paragraph about the plans for it (unless this is all there is on construction - it might need some tweaking to make that clear)
  • Corrected some typos, otherwise fine
• Just to ask if there's no more coverage - any incidents or anything?

 On hold @Kew Gardens 613: Just a few things Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC) @Kingsif: Due to the Jewish holiday of Passover and the Sabbath on Saturday, I won't be editing from tonight until Saturday night at the earliest. I wanted to let you know to make sure that you know that I am still committed to addressing the aforementioned issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif and Happypillsjr: In Kew Gardens 613's absence, I can address any issues that can come up. Just ping me with any issues you find. epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Those last few comments were all I found, if there's nothing else I'd be happy to pass this. Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, thanks. I think these have all been addressed. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)