Talk:Staten Island Railway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review shortly. I have contributed some minor edits to this article before, so I will try to be as impartial as possible in the review. Epic Genius (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is daunting, and some paragraphs and sections are quite long. Particularly distracting are the "Organization of the SIRT", "Expansion", and "1940s" sections. But these can be dealt with just by splitting up some paragraphs. Otherwise, fine. No plagiarism, as far as I can see. Grammatically, some sentences need punctuation improvements. They may also need to be broken up. For example: Under "Predecessor" section: When his competition had obtained the lease before him there was some discussion about it, and Vanderbilt, apparently through an "agent," James R. Robinson, erected a building to block the competition. should probably be split into two sentences. Ibid.: On February 1, 1860, the first passenger train, an inspection trip for stockholders and officials ran over the line from Vanderbilt's Landing to Eltingville. should have a comma after "officials." Under "Organization" section: Clarence T. Barrett, Henry P. Judah, and Theodore C. Vermilyen were appointed commissioners to appraise the value of the land required by the Staten Island Rapid Transit Company to extend the Staten Island Railroad from Vanderbilt's Landing to Tompkinsville. Were these three men commissioners, or were commissioners appointed to them? Ibid. State laws were not able to grant the right to run a railroad through the property of the United States, and as a result the grounds of the lighthouse department just above Tompkinsville, posed a serious barrier. There appears to be a missing comma (after "result") and an extra comma (after "Tompkinsville"). In fact, why not rewrite the sentence? Like this: and as a result, construction was hindered by the grounds of the lighthouse department just above Tompkinsville. Under "Late 20th century": On June 15, 1972, 17 year old "17-year-old" is hyphenated. Actually, it's spelled out. No matter, I fixed it. The article has a few sentences that sound like you're telling a story. It should be amended a little per WP:SUMMARY, i.e. making the whole article into the summary style that the majority of the article appears to be in. For instance: Under "1940s": The loss of life would have been higher, for only a few minutes before the fire started passengers from a train that arrived from Tottenville had just came and boarded the ferry boat Miss New York. should be removed, as it is inconsequential detail. Under "Early 20th century": By the 1910s, Staten Island was showing its shortcomings in handling B&O freight. Both Arlington and St. George Yards were choked with cars, many awaiting car float transport ... should be changed to By the 1910s, both Arlington and St. George Yards were at capacity, with cars at both yards awaiting car float transport ... In "Passenger": ADA compliant What's ADA? You should spell it out at the first mention. (I know what ADA is. Do other readers know what it is? They may not be railfans or disabled.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section: Per the manual of style, you may want to move references out of the lead. Body: Body sections are good. Paragraph style is okay, as the only parts of the article that are a list is in the "Industries serviced" section. You probably don't need to convert that into prose, since if you do that, you'll have one-sentence paragraphs. Words to watch Puffery: no instances found. Contentious labels: no instances found, as this is not potentially controversial. Unsupported attributions: no instances found, excluding unreferenced statements Expressions of doubt: no instances found. Editorializing: instances need to be fixed. In "Organization", you need to fix this: It was then that a clearly desperate Wiman offered to "canonize" George Law by naming the place "St. George." Law, humored by this, granted Wiman yet another option. "A clearly desperate" is not neutral. In "Predecessors", you need to fix this: Garner's tragic death. "Tragic" is not neutral. Synonyms for said: instances need to be fixed. In "Organization", you need to fix this: claimed that the Company had become "insolvent in September 1872, to have then surrendered its rights to others, and have failed to exercise those rights." Maybe "said" is more neutral" Fiction: No instances of fiction, so no problems there. Embedded lists: you may want to add some references to the "Stations" section. E.g. about the opening dates.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	According to WP:MOS, there is a reflist. All references are properly marked up.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	You may want to use Yadkard to fill out some of the references. REFLINKS doesn't work so well. Source 8, this one, isn't a reliable source per WP:OR. It is just an image. (You can put that as a note if you want. The statement, about how express service is marked on trains, doesn't seem to be that important, anyway. So {{efn}} should work for that purpose.) Same thing with sources 121 and 123–131. They are images, and aren't reliable Source 18, this source, is dead. Also, Flickr is not considered reliable, generally, though it's passable in a lower-quality article. As mentioned below, it is just a photo scan of a document.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Here is a list of statements that need sources: In "Late 20th century": In 1963, the railroad discontinued its ferry service between Tottenville and Perth Amboy Ferry Slip at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. In "Freight": The North Shore and Travis Branches saw freight service temporarily suspended beginning in 1991. Freight service along the Travis Branch and the westernmost portion of the North Shore Branch was restored by 2007. Along the remainder of the North Shore Branch, tracks and rail overpasses still exist in some places. In "Rolling stock": The New York City Subway's R211 order may have an option to replace the R44s. Until then, the R44s are undergoing another round of SMS to extend their usefulness until at least 2021. In "Restoration of the North Shore Branch": $4 million of federal funding was requested for a detailed feasibility study. In fares: The MetroCard statement is unsourced, but the MTA's official website would make a reliable source. In the station lists: maybe references for each station listing would be good. In "South Beach Branch": While the entire right of way has been redeveloped, most of the former right of way is still traceable on maps today. The Verrazano Narrows Bridge toll plaza sits on the former ROW. Also, This 4.1-mile (6.6 km) line left the Main Line at 40°37′08″N 74°04′18″W, south of the Clifton station, and lay to the east of the Main Line. But this is quite obvious, so maybe you can move an existing source to support that claim. In "Industries serviced": The listings need sources. In "Current use: Passenger": with even the possibility of through service between Arlington/Port Ivory and Tottenville, which the aforementioned Ballpark wye makes feasible (this did not exist prior to the 1953 discontinuance of passenger service on the North Shore Branch). Source?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of the Staten Island Railway are covered here. I have suggested spliting the "History" section into a new article, but otherwise, there are no major problems.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As I said, maybe you may want to split the "history" section into another article and then condense the summary to less than 5-10 kilobytes of prose. (This is optional for now, but it may become an issue should it ever go to FAC.) Otherwise, it doesn't go into unnecessary detail in any of the other sections.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No biases toward any particular groups. You may just need to change some of the narrative-like parts of this article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, etc. The article seems to have been modified by one main editor over the last couple of months.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Except for File:Staten Island Rapid Transit Police Patch.jpg, all images are freely licensed. File:Staten Island Rapid Transit Police Patch.jpg does not have a rationale for this article, so I removed it.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All of the captions are suitable for the images.
	7. Overall assessment.

Review comments

Any questions, comments, or concerns? Epic Genius (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I think you made really good points. Concerning the flickr links. Those are mostly pictures of documents. Is there anything I could do with those? Thanks. I have already started fixing the article. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The flickr links seem to be OK. You should probably write the title of the original document on the page, though. Epic Genius (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Have you been able to fix some of the remaining problems? Epic Genius (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I was able to fix some of them. I will fix more when I have a chance. I have to pick up my sister from a sleepover. Thanks again. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Cool. I've been unavailable for the past couple days because of a family reunion (sort of), but I'll mark some of these improvements down on the GA table. Your total contributions to this article are appreciated. Epic Genius (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, when I have more time I will do more. I hope the (sort of) family reunion is going well. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(It wasn't a family reunion. More like my mother's friends reunion. They've been together for several decades, and now one of them is moving to another place.) Alright, it looks like many of the problems are fixed. I'll look it over. Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: There is one unsourced statement left to go (see above), then I will pass this article. Epic Genius (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that all of the problems have been solved. If there is anything else that needs to be done, please tell me. Thanks again for your work. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Cool. Since all the problems have been fixed, I think I'll pass this article. Epic Genius (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)