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

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.

---

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

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.