Talk:75th Avenue station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mackensen (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~The station layout section is largely sourced to self-published sources.~~ Station layout is observational based on images; but verifiable. ~~There's still a citation needed tag present.~~
	2c. it contains no original research.	See 2b above, but I think that sort of observation is fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	~~See below.~~ Addressed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most of the history section discusses the history of the line or the surrounding neighborhood and not the station itself. There's nothing about the station's construction until the platform lengthening. I think it's in-depth enough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hello Epicgenius (talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a blatant copyright infringement from subwaynut.com in the Station layout section: [1]. Two sentences were lifted word-for-word. It appears that this was introduced in July: [2]. This needs to be addressed and I'm concerned if there are other violations present. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Thanks for telling me. Apparently, it was also redundant information, so I've removed it. epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's another: There used to be a full mezzanine but the fare control is now in the center so there is no free crossover; this allows pedestrians to cross under Queens Boulevard freely. was added by Union Tpke 613 (talk · contribs) in 2013: [3]. Mackensen (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed that. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a day or two before I finish reading and source review. Happily I've obtained digital access to the New York Times. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for introducing those copyright violations. Thank you for bringing them to our attention. I realize that this is serious. Thank you again for helping out with a good article review. I have added some better references. Thanks again!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this; sorry for the delay. @Kew Gardens 613: does Proceedings from 1951 specify platform length? I realize it's a small point, but the source isn't accessible to me. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK. I don't have full access. I just use the search feature that gives small clippings. I am using this reference to support the claim that the bid went out in 1951, not the platform length. The platform length is implied to have been 660 feet as all IND cars were 60 feet long, and eleven of them would require a 660 foot-long platform.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note providing evidence that is indirect but still proves that the platforms are 660 feet long. If it really comes to it I could go to the station with measuring tape. I live one station away. :) Is there anything else that needs to be done?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still OR :). I've copy-edited a little. At most it sets a minimum, the platforms might well be longer. The explanatory footnote is fine. There's still an unaddressed citation needed tag; otherwise I think we're there. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with that citation needed tag.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're skating perilously close to original research in the station layout section. Are there any reliable sources discussing it, and in particular its original configuration? Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we're there. Sorry about the delays during this one. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: I want to thank you very much for this review. @Kew Gardens 613: Thank you as well for cleaning up the article for this GA nomination, in my absence. I really appreciate what both of you have done. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Thank you so much for the review, and for your help.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]