Talk:Sloatsburg station

Sloatsburg station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

New York (state): Hudson Valley

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Low-importance).

Trains: Stations / in New York City Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 25, 2010

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sloatsburg (Metro-North station)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I found the history a bit confusing, since it was (in my eyes) not chronological, so I moved around the two last paragraphs. The two national parks mentioned in the lead should also be mentioned in the main body.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
What I feel is lacking is a "services" or "operations" section (perhaps merged with another section). While this not need be long, it would mention the train services. According to this there are twelve daily (if I counted right) services in each direction. This sort of thing would be worth mentioning in the article, even if it slightly doubles up with the Port Jervis Line article. Also, travel times and distance to Port Jervis, Syracus Junction and New York would be common information readers might be looking for. I also presume you have checked that nothing notable happened between 1855 and 2005 (this could very be the case, but I am just checking to be sure).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Placing the article on hold until some more on services has been added. Otherwise the article will pass the GA critera. Good work so far. If you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to speak up. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done!Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Congratulations with a Good Article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 03:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]