Talk:1 (New York City Subway service)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This my first time review, comments to follow - I've been reading the article but there are grammar and sentences that needs to be fixed. :)-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Concern

Hello @AmericanAir88:, I am concerned with this nomination which you have selected because apparently there's a copyright violation. So I would consider is fail this nomation.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Happypillsjr: That is a reverse copyright violation, the other site takes from Wikipedia. I believe we should put this back in the queue so another reviewer can look at this article. Even if you don't fail this article over this, it would probably benefit from having a more experienced set of eyes, with all due respect. epicgenius (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Okay, understood! I think could put that on hold for now.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 04:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Happypillsjr: The purpose of putting a GAR on hold is to allow the nominator time to address the issues you have raised. In this particular case, the only issue you have raised is unactionable; that is, there is no copyright violation and therefore nothing for the nominator to actually do. Please either pass the review or pass it over to a more experineced reviewer. Cheers! ——SN 54129 12:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:, give me few things to do is to re-check the article and that's all.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 12:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Since there's no evidence of a copyright violation then it is best that I can pass this nomination.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

Hi, after a request by Epicgenius, I've come to offer some comments - I've previously reviewed other articles for GA by the main editors, so I think we can work productively on this! Pinging @AmericanAir88, BlueMoonset, Epicgenius, and Kew Gardens 613: Kingsif (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Serial Number 54129: Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory ping to @Epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613, and AmericanAir88: since it's been a few weeks. Do you want to keep this on hold for longer? Kingsif (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Yes please. My user page should explain my limited editing lately. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Of course man :) Kingsif (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Article title isn't in the first paragraph of the lead, is there room for a "commonly known as the 1" at the start?
Good use of wikilinks in lead
- Could also link WTC Cortlandt station
The sentence There was both local and express service with express trains using the express tracks south of 96th Street. is a bit cumbersome; it is possible to expand this into more, shorter, sentences for readability?
Fixed.
Was the turn-around mentioned at the end of the first paragraph of Early service an interchange or not? Not necessary, but could be interesting :)
It was an actual loop. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"two-halves" should be two words, not hyphenated
Done.
Are all the bolded titles redirects to this article? I'd recommend making them for searchability
Could there be a wikilink to an appropriate New Lots Avenue article?
Done.
- More wikilinks could be introduced throughout the article in general, to similar things
Done.
I'm not sure if the info on late night trains is conflicting? ...242nd Street to between New Lots and Flatbush Avenues late nights. No trains operated for late night service - could this be explained better?
- The following paragraphs also mention cutting night service, but then turning the local trains into all late night trains? Will ask for explanation in coverage notes below :)
  I removed this part, since it's both unsourced and conflicts with sourced information. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A very big number ($100,000,000) is used; 100 million, could this be written out?
Done.
Mention of General Orders in West Side improvement subsection needs explanation or link
Done.
Should ...run between 242nd Street and South Ferry all times be "at all times" or is just "all times" common use for the topic?
Fixed.
R21s and 22s aren't well established, it's kind of obvious but could still say that they're types of car
Done.
Comparative to the previous subsections in service history, 'Skip stop, 9/11, and recent changes' is really long - could it be split somehow?
- Maybe skip stops could have their own subsection, with 9/11 and after in another?
  Done.
I've made the line numbers in this part bold, to match earlier - if wrong, please undo :)
No, you are correct. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the sentence As part of the study that resulted in the skip-stop plan, the NYCTA studied using the center track for express service, but settled on skip-stop service because the center track does not extend for the whole line. could be written better, perhaps expanded?
I tried to resolve it. @Kew Gardens 613: When you are free, can you check to see if this is right? However, the agency settled on skip-stop service because the center track existed in two discontinuous segments, which would require complicated track-switching maneuvers to accommodate the express trains. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could Most passengers would not have to wait longer for a train because, previously, a third of 1 trains had terminated at 137th Street be explained - the relationship between not waiting longer and different train routes could be better explained.
Done.
Two notes on The previous headway for stations north of there ... - headway can be wikilinked and 'there' is a little informal - I see it as referring to 137th Street, but 'this station' would be more wikistyle
- Yes, I feel these two sentences could be rewritten for clarity, though all the info is there
Removed "headway" as a jargon, and spelled out 137th Street directly. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Posting these comments but will continue
On July 1988, it was announced that 1/9 skip-stop service would begin... - shouldn't it be In July ... that the 1/9...?
Done.
The sentence about Inwood and Washington Heights residents not liking skip-stop seems tacked on - it doesn't flow well. Additionally, it doesn't really say whether they were opposed before the community outreach or after (or both).
Fixed.
I don't think the "center express track" has been mentioned before the fourth skip-stop paragraph, so its not clear where this comes in. Is there information about this track being express pre-skip stop? Or some contextual information that could be added here?
Well, this info is mostly explained in the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line article. However, it should be repeated in the 1-train article as well. I may do this later. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This fourth paragraph (A public hearing on the NYCTA's plan...) is also very bulky and could be broken up; especially with things like the analysis before 1988, this could be put earlier. I also think some of the information in the first half of it is a repeat of things that have been said before, but rephrased and mashed together. This paragraph is probably the weakest writing style-wise, too.
@Kew Gardens 613: Can you resolve this? epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Somehow I missed this. When I have some time I will try to address this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is skip-stop only wikilinked at the end of its section?
- Done.
There are some verbatim repeats in the last few skip-stop paragraphs.
- @Kingsif: Can you see if this was fixed? Otherwise, could you clarify? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The start of the 9/11 etc. subsection could be rewritten, separating and clarifying why it was rerouted and where it was rerouted.
- Some of the phrase choices are weak, e.g. When that was cleared by September 17... is a grammatical anomaly.
Will add more, again, but looks like it's currently being worked on Kingsif (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In 9/11 and recovery - the first paragraph is good content-wise, but rewriting needed per above.
- Done.
The second paragraph should probably mention that debris cleared/recovery completed as why the service resumed. Could also wikilink the new Cortlandt station at the end.
- Done.
Third paragraph here similar to the first. The main specific I can think of is the awkward phrasing again: New York City Transit was considering eliminating 9 and skip-stop service due to long wait times, and as a result of a decrease in the number of riders benefiting - surely the longer wait time is why fewer people benefited, but it's a run-on with a structure that's hard to follow
- Done.
It not entirely sure is It planned on making a decision in the summer is needed, but it can be kept with the sentence written to flow better
- Removed.
Last sentence of the last paragraph here needs to distinguish between the old loop station and the new South Ferry one.
- Done.
Given that there's only the one line, I'm not sure the service pattern table is needed. If standard to these articles, fine to include, but otherwise the information can be presented just as well in prose.
- I am considering rearranging it. There are some sections with only two tracks so "local" is not an option. epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work

Coverage

Could you explain here all about the late night trains? It may be because it's split across paragraphs, but I think the coverage of the late night services could be better. I'm a bit confused at the moment (I can follow the info on alternating trains fine, but feel it may benefit from some copyedit).
- Unlike most subway systems around the world, the NYC Subway operates 24/7. Late nights is from 12 am to 5:30 am. The 1 train alternated between either of two Brooklyn terminals. epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to say that I'm glad you've included the little fact about skipping stations at 15mph - it's useful and I appreciate the inclusion :)
- No problem.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to provide good coverage, I can't think of anything else not included
Doesn't stray
Question - pass except the late night confusion

Illustration

Good use of tables and images
Infobox suffices
Nice detailed route map with label key in box
All images commons or PD, correctly tagged
Pass

Neutrality

Reads neutrally
Pass

Stability

Expansion in September
Clear history
Pass

Verifiability

Consistent refs
Notes used for station table good
There's four cn tags; I personally don't think the first one is warranted, but will check the rest against current sources
- @Kingsif and Epicgenius: I will try once again, when I have time, to find sources to deal with these cn tags.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise well cited throughout
Working

Copyright

Already done, this is all good :) Kingsif (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Okay, that's all my comments, I'd be happy to discuss individual points further :) Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, sorry, I forgot about this article. I think Kew Gardens 613 may be better able to provide the missing citations, since he has access to materials that I do not. epicgenius (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kingsif and Epicgenius: I will try to find citations for some of these, but have had trouble finding citations for the dates from the 1920s through 1940s.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Kingsif, epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613, where does this stand? It's been over a month and a half since the most recent posts here; have the citation issues been addressed? (There are still three "citation needed" tags, all of which involve the 1950s (one starts in 1949). Are there any others outstanding? Can we get this wrapped up soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, sorry about this. I was busy with the WikiCup and school work, and forgot to address these points. I'm not sure what the status is regarding the citation needed tags, but there may still be some coverage gaps. epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I might give it another week, circumstances always pushed it back but it can always be nominated when the various editors have more time. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Kingsif: I have been very busy with schoolwork, so I have not been able to do much Wikipedia editing, but will try to find some time to address the remaining outstanding issues with the article. Thanks for following up on this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: Great, ping me when you're done! Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

I'm going to close (and fail) this for now, since there hasn't been significant work in a few weeks, and none at all in 10 days. However, all that I feel is left to be resolved are a few heavy paragraphs and some missing citations. It's otherwise a nice article. So, this is a fail without prejudice, in part to give the nominator(s) some pressure-free time to work on it, and I'll be happy to revisit when it gets put up for GAN again (hopefully soon!) @Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: If you want any help, let me know :) Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]