Talk:Flatbush Avenue–Brooklyn College station/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
On hold for 7 days (starting January 15/18)Pass!
- Pass or Fail:
- Is there a reason why the "Track Layout" box header needs to have a gradient? I get that those are the colours of the train routes but it seems unnecessary.
- Removed.
- "...were contracts for the construction and/or rehabilitation..." - The "and/or" can just be changed to "and".
- Done.
- There is a wiki article for Nostrand Avenue.
- Done.
- "The IRT Nostrand Avenue Line tunnels continue beyond the bumper blocks at Flatbush Avenue and Nostrand Avenue. They extend for several hundred feet to Avenue H" - Is there a reason why there are "extra" tunnels that can't be accessed by the trains?
- I don't know. However, no tracks were ever laid, so I added these. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- "The 1996 cast bronze relief artwork here is called Flatbush Floogies by Muriel Castanis" - Where is "here"?
- Fixed.
- The third paragraph in the Station Layout section has no references.
- I tried to add some. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. My main concern with the new ref you added is that it doesn't mention which platform that sign is talking about. The image that is already included in the article "U-shaped connection...." is actually OK to support most of this paragraph. However, "When the 5 does not serve the station, 2 trains depart from both tracks" will still need a source or be removed.--Dom497 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I will look for a better source. epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. My main concern with the new ref you added is that it doesn't mention which platform that sign is talking about. The image that is already included in the article "U-shaped connection...." is actually OK to support most of this paragraph. However, "When the 5 does not serve the station, 2 trains depart from both tracks" will still need a source or be removed.--Dom497 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I tried to add some. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- The last couple of sentences in the Exit section have no references (including the table).
- I added references to the table. The last sentence of the second paragraph still does not have a reference, though. Pinging Kew Gardens 613. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Refs #6, #7, #11, #15 doesn't seem reliable. Seems like all the contributors are just enthusiasts.
- NYCSubway.org is simply transcribing what is said in the actual Dual Contracts. I found the primary sources for all of these. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ref #10 appears to be dead.
- Changed the URL.
- Ref #13, #14, #17, and #21 don't seem reliable.
- Some of these are images. Other GA's about subway stations (like Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike (IND Queens Boulevard Line)) use image refs. I am noting here that I didn't replace all the references yet. Pinging Kew Gardens 613 to see if he can find a replacement. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was more questioning the source rather than the image, however, it's been a long time since I wrote my last GA article (over 2 years) and it turns out that I've done the exact same thing. On that note, these references are fine.--Dom497 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Some of these are images. Other GA's about subway stations (like Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike (IND Queens Boulevard Line)) use image refs. I am noting here that I didn't replace all the references yet. Pinging Kew Gardens 613 to see if he can find a replacement. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
On hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Passing!--Dom497 (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)