Talk:IND Queens Boulevard Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Please be patient as I work through the Review - this article is massive and it will take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2017 (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:

   For the most part this is a Yes but I think the lead section is too short for an article of this length and would be improved with more of the subject's claims to notability. For examples of what I mean, take a look at WP:FAs Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, Hastings Line & WP:GAs Ebbw Valley Railway, Yellow Line (Washington Metro). Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: I'm not the nominator, but I have expanded the lead a bit. Now it talks about route description, a little history, service pattern, and unbuilt expansions. epicgenius (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   There are some instances of what I call "reference stacking", where a list of references stretches out for several numbers within the cited text, this occurs in the

   • 'Route' section [at the end of the sentence] "...and the line continues as a four-track subway under Hillside Avenue."
   • 'Building boom and the growth of communities' section [at the end of the sentence] "...buildings were demolished in order to make way for new development."
   • [at the end of the sentence] "...residential communities of one-family houses to active population centers."
   • Multiple times in the 'Opening and expansion', 'Later years', 'IND Second System', 'Program for Action', ' "Super-express" line' sections
   • 'Northeast Queens line' section [at the end of the sentence] "...in the median of a widened LIE in a similar manner to the Blue Line of the Chicago "L"."
   • 'Southeast Queens line' section [at the end of the sentence] "...of existing facilities along the right-of-way."

   There are two ways to handle this issue. If you have a single reliable source for a statement, that should be sufficient - you could even remove some of the references from noncontroversial statements that have 2 or 3 references. However, if you want to retain these references for historical purposes, then use the WP:CITEBUNDLE template. That will keep all the references with the article but nest the numbers within a single number. My explanation probably isn't explaining the system very well so take a look at CITEBUNDLE, there are examples there that will lay out the code and the results to make it easier to understand. Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

   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:

   All of the fultonhistory.com cites have gone bad. I can't tell from Checklinks what the problem is - perhaps the website is no longer viable? You can see what I mean ->http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=IND_Queens_Boulevard_Line

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool, no issues found. Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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):

   This criteria is on hold until I can read through the article a few more times - there is so much detail it gets overwhelming but I am leaning towards the editorial decision that the details are necessary. Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   No edit-warring...yay! Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   Thank goodness for editor User:Jim.henderson - his photos are excellent illustrations of the text. Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for taking it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)I have fixed all of the Fulton History links.

On hold

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: Many thanks for fixing those issues. There are two remaining areas of concern:

• the sourcing for the "Daily ridership" in the infobox. http://mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub.htm has been dead since March 25, 2016 and there is apparently no archived URL for that info. I tried to find it on the mta's website but had no luck. If someone could source that figure that would take care of that.

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)That link has been fixed.

• There are still a few instance of reference-stacking in the following subsections: 1)Opening and expansion, 2)Later years and the 'Provisions for expansion' section.

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Now there are no places where there are more than 3 references that are not bundled next to each other. I hope that this fixes the problem.

I am going to do one last readthrough to see if there are any GA-types issues I have missed. Once I do a last deep readthrough, and if I've missed nothing (I hope) I will be able to finish my Review (assuming that these last referencing issues have been adjusted in the meantime). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work - the bundling that you have done I think fixes the overabundance of references within the text. Going forward, if you are thinking about going for FA then you might want to consider trimming down the amount of references (especially when multiple references are verifying one stated fact.

Daily ridership number

There is one remaining issue before I can finish my Review. I went to the MTA website expecting to find the cited figure but realized that the numbers have been all added together for the entire line.
Keeping in mind the GA criteria, this does not seem to be a problem to me however I think an explanatory note needs to be added to the article, stating that the total number consisted of adding together the following ridership numbers: [and then perhaps list the stations, lines etc that make up the overall total. If you said something like "The total "consists of all the stations' ridership listed within the IND Queens Boulevard Line Template" I think that would do the trick. I realize that listing the 20+ stations individually might just add "busy noise" to the article.]. If the goal is to make the information as accessible to Wikipedia's general readers as possible then the reader should know the stations' figures that were added up to get to the total of 467,779.
If you wish to discuss this here, that's fine. Shearonink (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed that. I think that you might find this link of interest.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You RickRolled me? Whyyyyyyy.... The nested/referenced Footnote you came up with is a thing of beauty though - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought that it was a suitable reward for doing the review. Thank you so much.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)