Talk:Roosevelt Island station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 15:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go. Please indicate issues that have been addressed with comments and maybe the {{Done}} template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read, and it is an important record of the GA process.

The lead should serve to introduce and summarise the main points of the article. It is too short to do this, and so you might like to be thinking about that while I review the rest of the article. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added some information to the lead. epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

History

• under the MTA's Program For Action. MTA needs to be spelled out in full on first occurrence, thus: Metrolpolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).

 Done

• as part of the island's proposed transit-oriented development. I think transit-oriented development needs a bit of explanation in this article, rather than relying on the wikilink, for those of us who are not town planners. So mention that such development tries to increase the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport. (I borrowed that from the lead of the TOD article).

 Done

• compared to if the station was built... is not good grammar. Suggest "Compared to building the station..."

 Done

• Transition from first to second paragraph. This could do with a little bit of context, to explain why there was a 25 year gap between announcing the development, with a station built later, to opening the whole project in one go.

 Done

• The tunnel had gained notoriety... The tunnel has not previously been mentioned. It would be helpful to know which tunnel, and where it sits on the subway map (ie between which stations). This needs a bit more context (shades of the review of Lexington Avenue–63rd Street (63rd Street Lines), I think!) Suggest "The tunnel had gained notoriety as the "tunnel to nowhere" both during its planning and after its opening, as the line's northern terminus at 21st Street–Queensbridge, one stop after Roosevelt Island, was not connected to any other subway station or line in Queens. This changed in 2001 when the connection to the Queens Boulevard Line was completed and opened." or somesuch. I have not changed many of the words - just reorganised it so that the narrative flows better.

 Done

Station layout

• from the future LIRR's lower level... LIRR needs spelling out on first occurrence, and problably needs a little bit of context to explain why people would need to exit here. Is there a ref for the bellmouths and the exits? (I think we had a ref for the bellmouths at least on the Lexington Avenue article.)

I haven't found a reference for this one yet. I have looked through the East Side Access FEIS, but I have found nothing. I will keep looking.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I just removed the detail about the emergency exit because it is trivial. Even though the exit can be plainly seen from the platform, that is considered original research. epicgenius (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Exit

• This is because of issues with pigeons... Suggest "The system was installed because of issues with pigeons..." or somesuch.

 Done

Ridership

• compared to 3,000 for the Roosevelt Island Tramway. Again, we need some context. Suggest "compared to 3,000 for the Roosevelt Island Tramway, an aerial tramway that also connects Roosevelt Island to Upper Manhattan." or somesuch.

 Done

Nearby points of interest

• Lists are not good news in Wikipedia, and it seems a shame to tantalise people with interesting things but not help them out. Suggest adding a sentence about each of them, because if they are points of interest, there must be interesting things to say about them.

 Done

• That is the text reviewed. I will be reviewing the references next. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking up this review as well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• It has been possible to check most of the references, as they are available online, although a couple need a newspaper subscription. They seem to support the text as written well. There are a few that need some attention.

• Ref 14 Review of F Line Operations, Ridership, and Infrastructure 25-page pdf needs a page number.

 Done

• Ref 15 Review of the G Line 29-page pdf needs a page number.

 Done

• Ref 16 History shows it’s not the G train extension. It is not obvious how this is relevant.

 Done This has been removed

• Ref 19 Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project. This makes no mention of the subway.

 Done Replaced with a better reference

• Ref 25 Tracks of the New York City Subway 2006. This is a book and needs a page number.

 Done

Lead

• The lead as extended is better than it was, but would still benefit from being slightly longer. Suggest that tidal power, bird scaring, and ADA-accessibility should be mentioned.

 Done – I have also added background information to the article

Captions

• Two of the image captions are too short.

 Done

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See comments above

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I have completed the review. As you seem to be responding quickly, I shall not be putting the article on hold, unless there is no further movement. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with everything. I shall hit the hay. Thank you again.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the extra background information is a great addition to the article, making the whole thing much more rounded. The lead now serves its purpose well, and all other issues have been addressed, so I am pleased to award the article GA status. Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again. I felt like that adding that information made sense, given its importance for the development for the island.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)