Talk:New York City Subway/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PointsofNoReturn (talk · contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I will get to this article in the coming days. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

1a. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

In the first sentence underneath the Rolling Stock section, the word "has" should be changed to "had." An updated statistic would be helpful too.

This has been dealt with

Language is pretty technical in the Safety section.

Is there anything left to do in this section? If so, what should I do?

Looks good to me now.

1b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

2a. Has an appropriate reference section:

2b. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

There are a lot of sections that need references. The most glaring example is the history section, particularly the first half of the section. The stations section also needs a lot of new references. The manual signaling subsection also needs references. Note that this list is not all-encompassing, in that more references are required in a variety of other places.

With regards to the existing sources, the sources are pretty reliable. There is also a lot of reliable sources, which is a positive thing. Sadly, even more references are needed in order to satisfy this criteria.

Source 207, titled "Citizens Crime Commission of New York City; Regional Plan Association (1986)", seems to be broken.

As of the active version at 10:04 pm EST, citations 35 and 195 appear to be broken.

They work for me

The links work, but there are a couple of error messages in the reference section of the article, for citation 35 and what is now citation 192, at 5:07 pm EST (it changed). The errors are described in the section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I dealt with those two links.

I will put tags next to the remaining paragraphs without references. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Tags added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Me and another editor replaced those tags with references, and I got rid of one, which had absolutely no references except for pages, which copied from wikipedia

I added references for the tags you just added--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

More added. And thank you for catching my mistake. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your welcome, and I don't see the ones you have added since I dealt with them.

My bad. I did not see that you added the latest round of links. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As of 5:49 pm est, links 68 and 205 appear to have error messages in the reference section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed those two links and added others where I thought they were needed.

2c. No original research:

2d. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

3a. Major aspects:

3b. Focused (see summary style):

This article seems bloated to me. While I enjoyed reading certain sections, such as the history section, other sections seemed either too technical or irrelevant to be in the article. I am worried that few people would read the entire article. Whether that is the point of a Wikipedia article is up for debate of course. Specific sections include:

Modernization. The section has a lot of new developments, some of which may not be important enough for an article on the subway system.

What should I do with this information? Would you suggest splitting this information off? I don't think it should be gotten rid of.

I will be honest. I am not certain what to do with it either. In cases of uncertainty, I usually stick with the status quo. In this case, the section can stay; it is not too long anyway. That also does it for length issues. Roughly 58KB of readable prose is a bit long, but not too long. I would try to keep the article size at around this level, going into the future. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Safety and Security, particularly the crime subsection which is partly discussed in the history section. In my opinion, the whole subsection should be condensed to one or two paragraphs and then be placed into the history section. The history section could use some more length, and the crime subsection is just too big. Note that there is an article titled Crime in New York City, with a subsection devoted to subway crime, with essentially the same content as in the crime section. Hence, I would summarize the section in the history section, and then have a main article link to the subway crime subsection of Crime in New York City. This section also has a lot of technical discussion that should be simplified. The Manual signals subsection is the best example of a subsection that needs to have less technical language. This subsection may not be important enough to be in the main article, and should simply be redirected to Signaling of the New York City Subway, which one sentence just summarizing that New York City has this system.

This has been done.

Under the history subsection about expansion projects, two of those projects, the 7 train extension and the Fulton St. Station, are completed (at least that is what the article seems to say). The only expansion project in the article not done is the 2nd ave subway. As such, I recommend that the two finished projects be moved out of the bullet section, and put above the 2nd ave subway section. Then the bullet for the 2nd Ave subway section should be removed, and that would just be a plain paragraph.

Done

The Stations section of the article needs to be scaled down drastically. The main article is a list article, with List of New York City Subway stations being a good summary. However, I cam convinced that the list article is not the proper place for a detailed explanation of stations. I would therefore recommend creating a subarticle at New York City Subway stations. The info from the main NYC Subway article and the info from the list article could then be copied to the new subarticle. Then the info on the stations in the main article and the list article could be scaled down drastically to a few paragraphs.

Dealt with

I would remove the labels of line and route listings from the main article because those listings are in the list article already created. It seems unnecessary to me to have them in both places.

Done

I would recommend removing the chart of routes and lines from the lines and routes section, and then direct the reader to the appropriate subarticle. As it is, the tables look kind of awkward where they are. I would also consider removing the map of number of tracks on each line, and possibly move the image to the appropriate subarticle if it is not there already. The map of elevated vs. underground subway lines should stay.

Done

4. Is it neutral?

4a. Fair representation without bias:

"Safe train operation on the whole New York City Subway is ensured by a combination of interlocking, signalling, wayside train protection and wayside speed control layouts.[167] However, no technical system is free of hazards." Located in the safety and security section, this sounds like a promotion by the city. Please reword.

This is dealt with

5. Is it stable? No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

6a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

6b. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Plenty of pictures, perhaps even too many. I would consider removing some images from the article, although this is not mandatory.

I would remove a lot of the images from the station subsection when you shorten the station section. I would remove most of the artwork pictures, keeping maybe 2, at most, 3.

Taken care of by splitting off the section from the main article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Pass or Fail:

Overall, the content of the article is very useful in describing the subject. The biggest issues you have are the needed citations and the consolidation of information in the article. I am willing to give this article an extended period of time to be fixed, given that I think this article needs a good amount of work, but that given the high profile nature of the subject, it should not be too hard to find more references. 7 days is optimal, but just describe a time you think it will take you below, and if it is reasonable, I will be okay with it. I may add more concerns based on grammar when the article gets shortened and it is easier to find those mistakes. Otherwise, good luck editing. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: This article has not seen any edits since February 17th. Although progress has been made, the article still does not meet all the GA requirements. This review was done on February 5th, and 18 days have gone by. I am inclined to fail the article now and let you try again later, but I am willing to give you until February 29th to make progress on the review. After that date, I am going to have to close the review. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what else needs to be done.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I looked through the article some more, and while some references were added, there are still citations that need to be added. A few paragraphs in the history section require citations. The concourse subsection requires some citations as well. The Platform section requires a lot of citations. Essentially, just look for the paragraphs without citations. Also, I am unsure which parts of my review you addressed. If possible, could you write a summary of your fixes under each criteria that needs to be addressed? That will make the review process easier. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have done what I think has been asked of me. If I have missed anything, could you please mention it to me as soon as you can? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good now. Glad to pass. Congratulations. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

No problem. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)