Talk:Staten Island Tunnel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll start this review today. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: Thank you for taking this review. Kylo Ren (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

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:

Comments

Overall

• Stability and images are fine.

Lede

• "State Senator Diane Savino was among the supporters of the tunnel, which, if built, would cost $3 billion and would improve quality of life for Staten Islanders, reduce traffic, and increase the attractiveness of the borough for investment." You should make it clear that this is Savino's opinion, not yours.
  •  Fixed.

Original plans

• In the sentence beginning "The tunnel would have gone from Vanderbilt Avenue..." you have the same citation in the middle and at the end. Probably only need it once.
  •  Fixed.

Groundbreaking and stoppage of construction

• You've got some one-sentence paragraphs that would be better combined with other paragraphs.
  •  Done.
• On the other hand, some of the longer ones here might be better broken into shorter ones.
  •  Done.
• "The plan was refused to be accepted by the Transit Commission and the Port Authority, which had its own plan." The passive voice makes this sentence is confusing. I think you mean the Transit Commission and the Port Authority each rejected the plan. Is that right?
  • Yep. I've reworded accordingly.
• "Since the plan would benefit the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Pennsylvania Railroad vehemently opposed to it..." The "vehemently" sounds a little POV, and it's probably more encyclopedic to leave it out.
  •  Fixed.
• "Officially, the plan was delayed due to lack of funding,[2][18] and due to the desire by Hylan and Board of Transportation (BOT) Chairman John Delaney to secure freight service for the tunnel." The "Officially" suggests something unofficial as well. Was there? If so, is there something in a reliable source that speaks to this alternate reason?
  •  Fixed. I think Hylan and Delaney unofficially wanted some different proposal, so they pulled the funding.
• The later sentences in that paragraph need to distinguish between the facts and the theories and, when theories are out there, make it clear who is doing the theorizing.
  •  Fixed.
• This all looks good, just these few small fixes and I'll be happy to promote. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Coemgenus: Thank you very much for doing the review. I believe I've fixed all the issues above. If you spot any more issues, please don't hesitate to tell me, though I'll also give the grammar a once-over myself as well. Thanks again, Kylo Ren (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • That all looks good to me. I'm happy to promote. I read the Atlas Obscura article about this thing when it was published, and I've enjoyed the chance to learn more about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)