Talk:North Shore Branch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2017 (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:
The following references have issues:
Ref #4/zetlin is dead.

Ref #15/nyc.gov is dead. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
@Epicgenius: There is, unfortunately, a rather large area of commonality between this article and http://jcrhs.org/B&O.html. The JCRHS article was written 2001/2004 and last updated in 2011, the content was added to this Wikipedia article in 2015. The WP article will have to be extensively re-written. ~~This Review is on hold until the #2D issue of "putting it into your own words" is resolved.~~ If you'd like to see the areas of concern just run the copyvio detector tool in the GA toolbox. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to fix that. I don't know which edits exactly the offending text was added in. I'm pinging the two main contributors, Kew Gardens 613 and Tdorante10, to see if they can help. epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have dealt with that problem. There was one main paragraph that was the problem and I rewrote it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Hurrah for no edit-wars! Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
File:Citizens Mass Meeting in Protest Against Discontinuance of Passenger Service on North Shore and South Beach Rapid Transit Lines March 17, 1953.jpg needs an explanatory caption. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a caption.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am going to do a few more proofing readthroughs to see if I missed any problems/issues. I must say this article is overall looking pretty darn good at this point but please take a look at "References" section below. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a WP:GA. Future improvements might include keeping the article up-to-date with news about the North Shore Branch's possible redevelopment and perhaps taking another look at the citations (bundling etc.). Congrats, Shearonink (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: On my last readthrough I did notice something - there are a number of times where there are multiple references in one long string (for example, in Route description, in History/Opening and 1900s). These references are basically interrupting the flow of the text, I think that WP:CITEBUNDLE is coming into play here.
There are two ways to deal with this:

Some of the refs could be deleted from sourcing the same facts or
The references could be bundled together (maybe the editor/nominator wants to retain the references for historical purposes, etc), then there would be one reference number for the multiple sources within the text with the sources all listed-out within the Footnotes. For an example of how to achieve this take a look at this article. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: Thank you for the feedback. I'll have to bundle these references later, then. epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I have combined all refs so that there are no more than 3 references in each string. epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visually much better - perhaps not the way I would have done it but that's ok. Going forward & thinking of possible future improvements I think that there is a bit of citation overload going on here, cite-bundling would be a good way to 1)Retain all the sources for historical purposes and 2)Increase readability in the main text - but how you've chosen to do it is your personal style and that's fine. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]