Talk:Euclid Avenue station (IND Fulton Street Line)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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:

   On hold for 7 days (starting January 20/18) Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• "During nights, this is the northern terminal for the Lefferts Boulevard shuttle from Ozone Park, Queens." - Is the shuttle a bus shuttle?
  • A shuttle train.
• "Construction of the extension began in 1938" - Are 3 sources really necessary for just this?
  • I don't really see a problem with these citations. Generally, it's only considered overkill when it's 4 sources or more. I would bundle them, but it doesn't work for this case. I just left them as is for now. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I still feel that 3 sources indicating when construction began is overkill. As much as the guidelines say 4 is overkill, in this specific cases 3 still seems to high. What is the advantage to having all 3 of these sources?--Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Construction of the station was halted in December 1942, and the station remained an incomplete shell during World War II that could not be finished because of material shortages from the war effort." - The flow of this sentence could be improved. Maybe something like: "Construction of the station was halted in December 1942 due to material shortages caused by World War II. Throughout the war, the station remained an incomplete shell".
  • Done.
• "At the time, the station was over 95 percent complete" - If this is the case was the station really a "shell". Maybe its just me but a "shell" implies that the concrete for the station walls, roof, and platform had been built but thats it. (This is just me being picky)
  • I clarified that the line itself was not completed. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• "...including a slightly different tile job" - change to "including slightly different tilling"
  • Done.
• "This station has four tracks..." - change to "The station has four tracks..."
  • Done.
• "This station has four tracks and two island platforms, and is the geographically easternmost" - Too many "and"'s.
  • Done.
• The lead mentions that this station is an "express station" but the station layout mentions local tracks. What is an "express station" then (I figured it meant only express trains stopped at this station)?
  • Express stations mean that they serve express and local trains. It's a definition that is used around the city, and also by the MTA itself. I can't change this without changing the wording in every other express station's article.
    By definition of "express train", if the station were served by express trains only, it would be an "express-only station". More to the point, it would actually be a local station, and these trains would be local. I epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I was just asking for clarification on what the term meant. Thanks for clearing that up. :) --Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Ref 30 and 33 needs more information in its citation
  • I fixed ref 30 and removed ref 33 as a duplicate of the "LTV Squad" images. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Why does ref 23 have two citations? These should probably be split into their own references.
  • This is per WP:CITEBUNDLE. I was figuring out how to fix the too-many-references problem, so this is the solution epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • In the five+ years I've been on Wikipedia I didn't know this was even a thing. Now I know!--Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Please add an access date and publisher to ref 5
  • Done.
• Some refs have access/publish dates like "9 October 2015" while others are "October 9, 2015". Please be consistent with the formatting.
  • Done.
• For the last image in the article that shows the staircase at track level, I'm guessing the wall leading to the 76th station is behind the camera? Might be worth mentioning that since I found that picture interesting. If possible I think it would also be interesting to include a picture showing the wall or "backwards" signals (obviously only if there are images that are licensed appropriately).
  • There aren't such images yet because it's illegal to go there, and I don't think anyone who's going to risk their life will license their image as "some rights reserved". epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I saw a bunch of images on Google of the wall and therefore was just wondering if there was a chance that one of them would be licensed for Wikipedia. Oh well, not the end of the world.--Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Overall a very interesting read! After reading the section about 76th street I ended up Googling about it and my conclusion is that the station was partially built but then filled in after it was abandoned! Anyways, after the above issues are addressed, the shinny green symbol will be awarded! --Dom497 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Dom497: I've fixed most of the issues you outlined. Going on a tangent, if you read the article by Joseph Brennan from Columbia University, it was an April Fool's hoax. This feeds off the station's cult status in the NYC railfan community, kind of like the Roswell UFO incident. To this day, no one knows what's behind the cinder block wall. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought the April Fools joke was just about the picture of a train being in the station? Anyways, per the other GAN review, I also missed the fact that the book references in this article need pages included within the citations.--Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)