Talk:Forest Hills–71st Avenue station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose seems reasonably clear and concise, with correct spelling and grammar.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Article complies with the manual of style guidelines.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References check out. Most are either to reputable news sources or government agencies.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	A couple of issues here. The part about George Harvey predicting that the subway would turn Queens Boulevard into the "Park Avenue of Queens" needs a citation. Also the information on the line opening has six citations, could that be trimmed down to fewer citations?  Done	Pass
(c) (original research)	Judging by the citations and prose there seems to be no original research.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Ran the page through the Copyvio Detector and there seems to be no red flags.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article seems to cover the important details for a New York City Subway station. One comment is that it seems like there needs to be more discussion about where the stations exits are actually located.  Done	Pass
(b) (focused)	The history section could use a bit more focusing. It feels like there's just a little too much focus on the early development around the station area and not on the history of the station itself. That's good information to include, it just needs to be a bit more focused.  Done	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article is neutral with no bias.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article is stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are tagged and there are no fair use images.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images are appropriately used and have suitable captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Overall a nice, detailed page on what appears to be a pretty important station in Queens of the New York City subway. This will be a good article with a little more focus in the history section, some additional information in the station exits section and some changes to the citations. Cheers! --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Thank you for taking this article up for review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer response: With those changes made, the article passes. Congratulations to all editors involved.

--RickyCourtney (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)