Talk:Park Avenue main line/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: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 21:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

More Comments[edit]

@Kew Gardens 613: and @Kingsif:, I need you guys professional help. I know the media are relevant to this article. Do you guys think this article needs more work or something?-- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick read, it could use a bit of clean-up, but overall it's a nice looking article. @Happypillsjr: would you like some pointers on where to start reviewing this? Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Sure -- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well obviously some of the criteria are very objective: stability, copyright, and illustration is fairly objective. So, you can use the earwig copyvio tool, but should manually look through the comparisons to check that it's not a mirror site or showing lots of proper nouns that don't count as copyvio. For stability, you can check through the article's talk page and history to see if there's been any editing disputes recently. For illustration, it's a bit more complex; you have to determine if the article should have some form of illustration (images, audio/video, tables, infobox, etc.) and where it is appropriate, then see if it has those, see if they are helpful to the reader's understanding, and then check that they are all free use (commons) or fair use (not-free, hosted on wikipedia, but with good rationale for needing to be included).
For the other criteria, which are about the quality of the writing and coverage, a good sense of something being well-written is needed. To be a GA, an article must at least be easy to read and understand. If there are points of confusion, these need to be worked on. The grammar doesn't have to be perfect, a copyedit can be requested (if it's very bad, you can ask for it to be worked on first). There are different style guides for different subjects, and it's good to look at these when checking how well something is written. To check if something is neutral, see if you start developing an opinion of the subject as you read along - if you start to think of it as more bad or more good than when you started, it could well have non-neutral language. And for coverage, if you find yourself expecting more information than is given - or wonder why some information is in the article - then it's probably failing this criterion; with coverage, I find it best to ask the main editors unless I am sure something is missing or unnecessary - they likely have more expertise on the subject if they're willing to nominate it, and asking will facilitate discussion about the point of concern.
I encourage you to start reviewing - practice makes perfect! - but if you want a second opinion on anything within this article, feel free to ping me :)
Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I think it's best to find someone to take over this review nomination because I was told I should take a break from nominating or reviewing any articles for quality status. In the past, I nominated a few articles for GA status and even though none of these were up to GA criteria. I really think I should have a mentor that would help me improve an article first before nominating anything else.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 02:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr: That's cool - I've set the nomination to ask for another reviewer. If you keep watching this page, you could see how they do it. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion[edit]

@Happypillsjr and Kingsif: Are you looking for a new reviewer or simply a second opinion on something. I'd be happy to review the article or provide a second opinion, whichever is needed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: A second reviewer, I think. Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, I'll get started on it in the next few days. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: You marked a statement on the article, namely Internally, the MTA designates the entire Park Avenue main line south of the Harlem Line's split as part of the Hudson Line., as unclear. What do you find to be unclear about it? Thanks for your help.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to save the related edit here! I'm not familiar with the New York rail lines, so the previous statement was that the Park Ave Main line splits into The Harlem Line and Hudson Line, but then this sentence seems to imply that after splitting into those lines, it's still the Park Ave main line? I'm just a little confused about what these splits and designations mean for where the "end" of the Park Ave line is. — Wug·a·po·des​ 14:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes[edit]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

  1. While interesting, the bit about the first rear-end collision breaks the flow of the paragraph. It almost reads like the extension of service was a result of the collision.
    1. @Wugapodes: How would you suggest I change this?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      1. @Kew Gardens 613: I think either turning the two sentences on the collision into an explanatory footnote (using something like {{efn}}) or removing it. I think the paragraph flows better and makes more sense if the information about the extension immediately follows the sentence on the opening of the first section. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "At the time, Harlem was a small suburb of the city" It's not clear how this sentence relates to the rest of the paragraph; is this why the line hadn't yet extended to Harlem, or had it and this is just providing context?
    1. @Wugapodes: It was intended to provide context.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The paragraph which begins "In 1875, the line was grade-separated and put in an open cut and a viaduct between Grand Central and the Harlem River to reduce pedestrian deaths and to increase speeds." is confusing. It seems out of chronological order, as it's talking about 1875, then goes back to 1872; and seems to be discussing the legislation that was discussed earlier in the section. Is this a mistake from previous versions or can it be clarified/explained?
    1.  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "In January 1876, a test case went on trial in New York Supreme Court" what came of it?
    1.  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both of which were named after the railroad's president ("John Mason" and "President")" Earlier in the paragraph, John Mason was referred to as Vice-President. Obviously people can get promoted, but it took me a while to figure out what happened. It may be helpful to clarify. Perhaps something like "two horsecars---'John Mason' and 'President'---built by...both of which were named after John Mason who had become president earlier in the year."
  • The section "street railway" only uses the acronym "NY&H" once, and very far from when it is defined. By the time readers get there, they've likely forgotten what it means (I did) and will be confused or have to go searching back through the article. If an acronym will be used, it should be used frequently or closer to the place it is defined.
  • Should the names of trains be in italics?

Results[edit]

Sorry for the delay. I'm still working through the article. These are my comments in the meantime. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: No problem. I should have time to address these tomorrow. Thanks so much.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: In response to Should the names of trains be in italics? - the Metro-North lines aren't italicized, but the Amtrak trains are. epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: Do you have any further comments on this nomination? epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listed I thought I had passed this already! No more comments; looks very good. Thanks for the hard work everyone! — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Park_Avenue_main_line/GA1&oldid=941475859"