Talk:Woodhaven Boulevard station (IND Queens Boulevard Line)

Slattery Plaza

Could there be room in the write-up for the origins of the name "Slattery Plaza"? From what I hear, the name is long out-of-date, but it could provide an interesting history of the neighborhood. DavidRF 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. --NE2 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Woodhaven Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 01:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing later, as part of WikiCup 2017. SounderBruce 01:37, 3 January 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:

   The lead section does not suinclude a summary of the station's history section.

   Done. epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 3 January 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:

   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:

   Some paragraphs in the history and layout sections have too many inline sources (the general rule-of-thumb is three at most) that need to be either spread out to other sentences or removed.

   I've dispersed the sources. Most sentences now have up to four sources, which should be bundled shortly. epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   The list of bus routes is completely unreferenced and the operator column in particular seems OR-ish, if not unnecessarily detailed.

   I've added references. epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   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:

   I'm not sure that we need two bus pictures, as it makes the section too small on lower resolution displays. A picture of an in-use station entrance would be nice as well, but is not necessary for this review.

   Removed the Q29 one. epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   There is already an image of a station entrance. (Two of the other three are also in the middle of nowhere.) epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A few nitpicks and this one is good to go. SounderBruce 02:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Thanks for the comprehensive review. I will fix these issues over the next few days. epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: All the issues are fixed now. epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for fixing those issues. I will pass this nomination. SounderBruce 03:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Woodhaven Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113014240/http://www.stationreporter.net/rtrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/rtrain.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922060746/http://www.stationreporter.net/mxtrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/mxtrain.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)