Talk:Archer Avenue lines/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ComplexRational (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. It may take until the weekend, though, before I can give in-depth feedback. ComplexRational (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Thanks so much for being willing to take this up. I really appreciate it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. 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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: All changes addressed, so all the criteria are now met. Thanks for working through this review, and for contributing another high-quality NYCT article; keep up the good work! ComplexRational (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generic comments[edit]

@Kew Gardens 613: I'm noticing that many of the sources do not have a URL or any other means of locating them on the web (besides unsuccessful searches). Do you still remember where you accessed them? It will be difficult to review the sources and verify some specific figures without this information, so it would be great if you could retrace them, link them, or email them if they are offline documents. ComplexRational (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, these seem to be pretty reliable sources, but criterion 2b requires verification of statistics (such as prices and ridership) and opinions. The main ones giving me trouble are Long Island Press and Newsday; I'll post the exact statements later. ComplexRational (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Here is the thing. This is my only GAN that I have made significant use of newspaper clippings that are not on the web. I went to the Archives at the Queens Library in Jamaica, Queens to do this research. Some of these, like the Daily News, should be on the web, so I will add URLs for those that are on the web. For the others, you will have to take my word for them. I had to do that with a few Good Article Reviews that I did. If you have any more questions, let me now.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I've finished looking over the references, lead, and MOS pages. There are only a few comments remaining before the remaining criteria are completely fulfilled, so I'm putting this on hold for the moment. Once these comments are addressed, this looks almost certain to pass. Thank you for your work on this article! ComplexRational (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: I will address as much of these points as I can today. Thanks so much for taking this up. I like the reviews of my articles to be very thorough, so I would welcome ore thorough analysis of the article. The reviews that have felt most fulfilling are the ones were ones like this, like for Aqueduct Racetrack station. Thanks!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific feedback[edit]

Overall comments[edit]

This is, as a whole, a very detailed article that covers all the main points and mentions many important details. Most of my comments below are about specific references or statements that may be excessive detail. More will follow on the lead and specific references later; I have not yet gotten up to that part, and anticipate doing so tomorrow or Saturday. ComplexRational (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • For starters, I'd encourage adding a few more images—perhaps of the stations—if possible.
    •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for adding the images. They have appropriate licensing and are relevant, so I'm marking criterion 6 as passed. ComplexRational (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Second paragraph - "Since the two levels share no track connections..." - although it is later implied that the two lines are completely separate, you might want to consider making this clearer, and perhaps add mentions of different radio frequencies, in the body.
  • Considering that the body reiterates and gives numerous examples of construction and opening delays, I feel that there should be a sentence summarizing this in the lead.

Extent and service[edit]

  • "See also: Program for Action" - I don't see how this hatnote pertains to this section's content. It's already mentioned in the history section, where it is more relevant.
  • "190th Street–Hollis Avenue" - the intent to extend eastbound is clear, though I can't find this exact terminus mentioned in the cited sources. If I missed something, please let me know.
    • @ComplexRational: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I did not see this terminus mentioned in the cited sources, and have looked to see if I could find anything on the proposed extension. I will look for more information on the proposed terminus later. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ComplexRational: I changed this to Hollis and added a different source.  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planning[edit]

  • "(now called Briarwood)," - The station is already linked, and I don't see the purpose of linking the neighborhood here
  • "...Baisley Boulevard, and Springfield Boulevard." - This citation needs specifics; where is this image from? In its current state, I cannot say if it is reliable.
    •  Done I provided the original source. I have class now.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Much better now. I added the page number as well. ComplexRational (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Sorry for not doing that. I was quickly doing this before a class.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "blowers in the track roadbed to dissipate heat from air conditioned trains." - these are the exact words used in the source; please paraphrase if possible.

Construction[edit]

  • "at Archer Avenue and 151st Street." - 151st Street looks like a private street on Google Maps (street view), so the use of this as a point of reference seems questionable. As the refs are offline, could you please clarify if 151st Street is mentioned (in that case I'd presume the map changed), or if not, define another point of reference?
  • "paving the way for the southeast Queens subway line and the demolition of the Jamaica Avenue Elevated" - very similar to the source material; this also needs to be paraphrased.
This initially appeared when I did a copyvio check, unless it is purely coincidental that this diction is identical. ComplexRational (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks. In any case, I see no reason to have this here; this is mentioned in the section above.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The removal of the elevated's frame was expected to take six to eight months. Demolition on this section was expected to begin early in 1978." - I feel this should be supplemented by end dates (if given in a RS), and reworded to something along the lines of "Demolition of this section began early in 1978 and took... (or ...in 1978 and lasted until...)", to give a more complete picture.
    • @ComplexRational: I had added more information on the demolition of this section. Is this sufficient, or does more need to be added or changed? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine now, no more concerns about the structure of that part. ComplexRational (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On March 5, 1975, the MTA announced that the line should open by 1981. An August MTA letter stated that the line would not open until 1984." - not sure if this would be better placed at the end of the paragraph beginning "In July 1974...", which details what happened at the time of these announcements.
  • In general, this section is a very large wall of text; while it certainly pertains to construction, could you break it using subheadings?
  • Rest of the paragraph from "In April 1979, the Jamaica Water Supply Company," - does the ref cite this whole chunk? Please clarify, as the figures will need another citation if this is not it. I'd also split this into its own paragraph. Maybe a few very particular details could also be trimmed; the focal points should be concerns about water pumping during construction and its resolution, but don't worry about this part as much.
    • @ComplexRational:  Done I split it into a separate paragraph. This ref does cite the whole chunk. Was there anything you thought should be trimmed?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Better now. The only thing that I'm not sure is necessary is "2 billion gallons of water worth $1.4 million had been given to the company since 1976", because it breaks the flow in the rest of the paragraph. It doesn't make a very big difference either way, so I'll leave this to you to decide. ComplexRational (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the temporary operation of 121st Street" - as a terminal station?

Opening delays[edit]

  • Paragraph beginning with "In June 1986, CTL issued a final report..." - does the citation include the payment figures as well?
    •  Done I got all of the information I added from the source material, so yes, the citation does include the payment figures.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "severely cut back" - I'd recommend dropping "severely" to make this more neutral, unless the source explicitly calls it severe.

Jamaica Line[edit]

  • "The all-stop stations were...Chauncey Street and Gates Avenue." - while skip/stop is certainly important, I don't see how the categorization of stations or service in Manhattan directly relates to Archer Avenue service.
  • "All cars on the J/Z were expected to have air-conditioning by summer 1989." - this detail doesn't work very well here on its own. Do any sources say if these upgrades were actually made? It may even be better to cut this out entirely.
    • @ComplexRational: The cars were made air-conditioned to make the J/Z a more attractive alternative to E service. The upgrades were made by the transfering of different subway cars to the line. I will find sources.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks pretty complete now. It's not holding up the GA per any criteria, so I'll let this pass for now, though feel free to work more on this part if and when you find anything. ComplexRational (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Boulevard Line[edit]

  • "The opening of the Archer Avenue line was expected to reroute 17,500 riders from Hillside Avenue to Archer Avenue." - do you recall if the citation mentions 17,500?
  • Rest of the paragraph from "F trains no longer stopped at 169th Street between 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.." - this appears to digress from the focus of service on Archer Avenue; I would recommend trimming this.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archer_Avenue_lines/GA1&oldid=915569607"