Talk:7 Subway Extension/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 10:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. I have read through the article a couple of times, and it is a good candidate for GA status. There are a few things I have noticed that need attention. I would normally work through the sections, making notes as I go, and leave the lead until last. However, the lead is inadequate. Its purpose is to introduce the subject, and summarise the main points of the article. For an article of this length with five sections, it needs at least two substantial paragraphs to summarise the content. I will return to the lead later. Can I suggest you mark any issues addressed with suitable comment, and possibly the  Done tag, but I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the review more difficult to read at a later date, and it forms an important record of why GA status was awarded.

Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project

• The Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project could do with a small amount of background, so that readers keep reading, rather than following the link to find out what it is.
• "the 7 subway extension plan received approval to move ahead, as New York political leaders would like to see ..." Suggest "...wanted to see..." so the tense agrees with "received approval".
• "and subway service would be an essential part" Suggest "and a subway service" or "subway services" reads better.
• "serve the newly expanded Jacob K. Javits Convention Center" Again, could do with a small amount of context, as "newly expanded" dates very quickly, and it is not obvious if it has dated. When was it expanded?
• Map. The map is good, but needs a key. What do the purple and light blue sections represent? Suggest adding details to caption.

Construction progress

• MTA is an abbreviation. It needs expanding on first usage, so "Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)".
• "contract to build 7,000 feet (2,100 m) of twin-tube tunnel from the current 7 train terminus at Times Square, and the shell of the 34th Street station." I cannot understand this. Did the shell of the 34th Street station already exist? If it did, perhaps "between" would be clearer than "from". Clarification needed.
• Mention of drill-and-blast and tbms is unreferenced.
• "However, the R62As and R188s on the line have different door configurations" This drops into Geek mode. It needs some explanation in words, so: "However, two types of subway car are used on the existing line, and the R62As and R188s have different door configurations" or somesuch.

• I was sorry to see the details of the R188 and R62A cars have been removed as unreferenced. There is discussion here which might provide an alternative.

• "In February 2009, the MTA lowered the first of two tunnel-boring machine into a giant shaft at the corner of 25th Street and Eleventh Avenue" Previously, it was S3 who were awarded the contract for tunnelling. Now MTA appear to be doing it. Is this a different contract? If so, are the details of what S3 did correct?
• "part of the northern (compass eastern) end" is too cryptic to guess what it means. Add some explanation.
• "In May 2012, the MTA announced that the extension, now 65% complete, had received the installation of the first set of rails." This is a single sentence paragraph. Suggest amalgamating it with the previous paragraph.

34th Street station

• "currently under construction" needs qualifying, so that we know when "currently" is.

Proposed 10th Avenue station

• "The station was not included in the original contract award. However, a $450 million option to build a shell for the station was included as part of the October 2007 contract" This is not at all clear. When was the original contract awarded? The only mention of contract so far has been that to S3 in October 2007. Clarify.
• "if the City of New York and the MTA can come to terms on the additional financing for the station shell" Suggest "could come to terms", as it was six years ago.
• "it would build the station if the agency received sufficient funds" Is the agency the MTA? If so it should be authority. If not, the agency needs explanation.
• "The plan would replace the Access to the Region's Core (ARC) tunnel" This needs further context so we know what ARC would have achieved, and hence why this scheme could replace it. (Context would also lengthen a very short paragraph.)
• "the city's Economic Development Corporation voted to budget up to $250,000 for a feasibility study of a tunnel for the subway line extension awarded to Parsons Brinckerhoff, a major engineering firm that had been working on the ARC tunnel." Unclear. Was it the feasibility study that was carried out by Parsons Brinckerhoff? If so, how about "... a tunnel for the subway line. Parsons Brinckerhoff, a major engineering firm that had been working on the ARC tunnel carried out the study, and the report..." or somesuch.
• "The proposal include the construction of the in-fill station at 10th Avenue, tunnels run along the path of the ARC tunnel, and a multi-level multi-modal addition to Secaucus Junction." verb/noun needs resolving, so "The proposal includes..." or "The proposals include..." and I suggest "tunnels running" rather than "tunnels run".
• "A widening of the right-of way a Northeast Corridor expansion was considered." Doesn't quite make sense, and probably needs expansion to clarify what is meant.
• "The New York Post has reported that the Flushing line extension..." Needs "to Secaucus" or somesuch, since the 7 subway extension is also described as an extension of the Flushing line, and is not yet completed.
• "But travel times into Manhattan" But is a conjunction, and so should not be used at the start of a sentence. Suggest "However, "
• "the key goal of reduced tunnel congestion would not be achieved" Is this the key goal of the ARC project or the extension to Secaucus? Clarify.

References

• There are four dead links, and several which no longer go to the cited information. Use the "external links" option on the toolbox menu to track them down. At least some of them are available on the Wayback machine. I have not checked them all yet.
• Ref 12 (Cooler Subways coming - eventually) is dead and I cannot find it on Wayback.
• Ref 18 (West Side Development Project Gets The Green Light) is dead.
• Ref 34 (City Investing In Possible 7 Line Extension To New Jersey) is dead.
• Ref 40 (No 7 Secaucus Extension Feasibility Analysis Final Report) is a 61-page pdf and so need page numbers.
• Ref 41 (Report: Plan To Extend 7 Line To Jersey Back On Track) is dead.
• Ref 48 (City Floats Idea Of Extending 7 Train To Jersey) is dead.
• Ref 50 (Gateway project) is a 10-page pdf and so need page numbers.
• Ref 54 (No 7 Secaucus Extension Feasibility Analysis Final Report) is a 61-page pdf and so need page numbers.

I have managed to find archived versions of several other dead links.

Lead

• As mentioned above, this needs expanding to function as an introducion and summary of the article.
• I particularly note "which carries the 7 <7> trains". Even following the links does not clarify it very well, though if you persist you can eventually find details on Wikipedia. I would suggest "which carries local trains, designated as 7, and express trains, designated as <7>" or somesuch, so that readers are not immediately discouraged from reading because of impenetrable numbers.

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See comments above

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Thats it for now. I will put the article on hold, and check back to see how things are progressing. Most of the comments are fairly easy to fix, I think, but the refs may take a little more work. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have improved the article based on all of the above criteria. The references still need a little work, but I'll try to fix them within 2-3 days. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 02:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• All requested improvements are  Done. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have checked through the article again, and I agree that all points raised have been addressed. Congratulations. I am awarding the article GA status. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)