Talk:Sutphin Boulevard station (IND Queens Boulevard Line)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi i will be taking this review. 1.02 editor (T/C) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: Thanks so much for taking the review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• 'Located at Sutphin Boulevard and Hillside Avenue' is it located between the two or at a junction between them?
  • It is located at the intersection of the two streets.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Kew Gardens 613: Then i would suggest mentioning it in the lead. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Is it necessary to show the map of the whole US in the infobox? The other three maps portray the location of the station much better.
  • @Epicgenius: Any thoughts on this? I haven't done anything involving these maps, so I don't know what makes sense.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @1.02 editor and Kew Gardens 613: All of these stations are shown the same location within the larger US map and will be shown at nearly the same location in the New York (state) map. I will remove these. epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• 'with the only major work left to be completed the final 200 feet (61 m) in the 169th Street terminal' I assume this is referring to the track? Please clarify.
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• In the exits subsection it mentions that the fare control area was gated off and there is a exit only turnstile. I'm curious how do people access the platforms now.
  • There are other fare control areas for passengers to access the platforms.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Regarding note 1, I would prefer that the body also mentions the part about the line initially being served by 10 car trains.
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• There is a citation needed tag in the In Popular Culture section.
  • @Acps110: You were the editor who initially added this to the article. I am going to hide this even though it is almost certainly the case, and if you find a citation for this, it can be unhidden.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Kew Gardens 613: He hasn't edited for close to six years now (ironically, his last edits were to revert my edits). I think he has retired from the project permanently. epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Epicgenius: It is always worth a shot. People might be lurking.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would suggest that the station succession part of the infobox be replaced with a S-Line template
  • @1.02 editor: Why would you want to do that? This is how station succession is presented in subway articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I suggested that as the articles for many subway/metro systems also uses the template or a similar template and it reflects the succession of stations clearer than when mentioned in its current form. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• The body is missing some information such as when did the E train become an limited express service
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Another thing that should be included in the body is the drop in passenger numbers due to the opening of the new station and a figure to show the drop would be nice if avaliable.
  •  Done I came across these figures in research I was doing over the summer. Thanks for reminding me to include them.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the construction subsection says that tracks were installed to 178 street but the terminus at that time was at 169 street. Please clarify this.
  • @1.02 editor: The terminal was at 169th Street, and tail tracks went to 178th Street. That is not relevant to this article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Was looking through similar reviews and found a comment on the bolding of train numbers. I would like to see the outcome of that discussion as it also affects this article.
  • @Epicgenius: Do you think we should remove them?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Kew Gardens 613: Maybe. I think this should go hand-in-hand with removal of bolding on other stations' articles though. epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
      •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hold

I have completed reviewing the article and there are some issues that need to be resolved first and i will be putting the article on hold for these issues to be resolved. I will give the article a second look in a while. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 16:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: Thanks for your review. I believe that I have dealt with all of these issues. I like thorough reviews, so if there is anything in the article that you feel needs to be addressed, or should be addressed, don't hesitate to mention it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: I have given the article a second look and have more comments on the article. I apologize if the initial review wasn't detailed enough. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: Is there anything else that needs to be fixed?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

All concerns raised has been resolved and the article is ready to be a GA. There is one minor issue that still needs to be fixed but i wont hold the article back because of that. Please ensure that it is fixed asap. Passing. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)