Talk:Parsons Boulevard station/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to take this review as well since i'm already doing the other one. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comments[edit]

The article is already of quite good standard as some changes were made with the review of sutphin blvd station
'The first section...to Roosevelt Avenue in Jackson Heights' Missed this in the previous review but where did the first section originate from?
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why the track layout is in the history section and not the station layout section?
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason was that it would take up less space in History than in Station Layout. epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also why is there a north indicator in the track layout template? Is this normal?
- @Epicgenius: This is normal.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can confirm. This is so that readers know where compass north is, in relation to the actual orientation of the tracks. epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case it should be added to the one in sutphin blvd also, alongside the changes made in the first comment. 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'...that constructing a station at that location would prevent express service from operating past Continental Avenue.' To an average reader this sentence may be hard to undertsand. There is no other mention of continental avenue and it is unclear if the sentence is related to the next sentence (which i believe is the explanation to the reasoning in the first sentence).
- I changed Continental to 71st to clear thigns up. What isn't clear?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably should be mentioned that 71st-Continental Avenues-Forest Hills was the former name of the station. epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - most people outside of new york would not be able to establish the connection between continental street and the station as it is not widely used.
The front part of the August 1936 paragraph has no sources.
- Yes it does. The "Men Toil Under The Earth" source also applies for that.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'with the E terminating at one station and the F at the other' could you specify which service terminated at which station?
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the times which the part time token booth operates from is unnecessary.
- Why do you think it is unnecessary?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This will come under WP:NOTGUIDE. Mentioning that there is a token booth can be encyclopedic but mentioning what time it is open is a guide, unless the operating hours has some significance which in this case I assume not. 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - How do you want me to detail the former hours of the entrances and the booth? I think that is important to underscore the expansion and reduction of hours.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kew Gardens 613 Giving the number of hours reduced would suffice. 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for not dealing with this earlier. I have had a lot of school work. Do you also want me to change the access hours? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The current version seems ok to me but if you want to change it go ahead. Always good to be bold. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold[edit]

The article is already of quite good quality but there are still a few concerns that I have raised. I have put the article on hold while these are addressed. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else you would suggest I fix? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay but the article seems fine as of when i last looked through and all raised concerns have been resolved. Nice job with the articles in this topic. Passing. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]