Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Staten Island Railway/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2019 [1].

Staten Island Railway[edit]

Nominator(s): Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the only rapid transit line on Staten Island. The railway first opened in 1860 to serve the residents of the island. In the 1880s two additional lines were built and the original line was extended to a new terminal at St. George. Since then the two additional branches closed, leaving the original line. Before I started editing the page–unbeknownst to me–it was completely copied out of a book by an abusive user. I did research in the New York Times archives, through books that I own, and through books and documents that could be viewed on Hathitrust or Google Books. I nominated the article to be a Good Article, and it passed. The review was not thorough enough, and statements were copyrighted. I fixed the issues and it was kept as a good article. Because the history section became so long, it got split off into a separate article, History of the Staten Island Railway. Since then I have worked on providing better sources, more accurate information, and additional information. I nominated this on April 22 of this year, and in response to comments made by Nikkimaria I replaced some SPSs and standardized some sources. The nominations subsequently stalled, and was archived. I hope that a more thorough discussion of the article can take place to determine what changes need to be made for this article to become a Featured Article. I look forward to working with other editors to resolve these issues in a constructive manner. For those taking up time to review my nomination, I thank you in advance for taking the time to do so. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review Comments by Catrìona[edit]

I should get to this today or tomorrow. Catrìona (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source numbering based on the permalink to the current revision: [2]

  • All of the notes look like original research to me.
  • Sources of concern:
  • 8, 130–132, 134: nycsubway.org is a non-official wiki, according to its homepage.
  • 12, 36, 128: I can't think of a circumstance in which I would accept a Google Doc as a source. It's one thing to cite a self-published book, which at least won't change its contents. And, also per Nikkimaria's previous comments, if Bommer has not made any publications in this area, I don't think he meets WP:SPS.
    • See pages 4 and 6 of [3] --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To add on, I think the Google Drive (not Doc) PDF may be a re-publication of a print document. Google Drive is commonly used as a file hosting site. It seems like this was originally created for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Historical Society Convention in 2003, but was put into Google Drive in April 2015. epicgenius (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26: Slightly less dubious than a Google Doc, but still a SPS by Bommer. The website cites no references and lists no sources; it's unclear what editorial control and fact-checking the historical society is using.
  • 30: Page number needed
  • 34: Secret Staten Island looks like a glorified blog
  • 50: Get rid of the link to gretschviking.net unless there's proof that they have permission to post the copyrighted newspaper content.
  • 67, 77, 78, 102, 127 silive.com Seems to be a minor local news organization; I cannot find information about its editorial practices. However, at least some of these citations are duplicative of more reliable sources and could be removed.
    • Removed. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • silive.com is the website of The Staten Island Advance, a long-running local newspaper, and the namesake of parent company Advance Publications, a major newspaper-publishing company with papers around the country. It's a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seconded. It is not a "minor local news organization", but rather, a major regional newspaper (it covers Staten Island, a locale with a 500,000+ population, and has done so since at least the early 20th century). It's just that the Advance's web hosting platform is not conventional for a newspaper. epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100, 109–110, 113–114: I don't think that an image from Flickr, Wikimedia commons or on Wikipedia could be used as a source to support article text, per WP:UGC and WP:NOR. When citing a report, cite the original not where you got it from.
  • 117, 124–126: A personal website is not a RS. Also, I fail to see how these photographs could support the article text without original research.
    • What exactly is being cited by the photographs that you have issues with? There aren't any policies that specifically prevent photographs from being used as sources, if the items pictured in the photograph are easily visible and obvious to the viewer. epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 135: CurbedNY is a blog network, according to its Wikipedia article. Not a RS.
    • No, it is a reliable source. It's set up like a blog because of the commenting system, but every article published by Curbed is based on verifiable information, such as real estate listings and press releases. (Also, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for determining what is a reliable source...) epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether it is based on verifiable information has nothing to do with whether it is a RS. What matters is the editorial control and fact-checking. Catrìona (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it passes that as well. It is more of a news blog, like the Wall Street Journal's or New York Times's blog sections, than a true blog. But you could bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard if you have further objections. epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting issues:
  • 25, 71: fill out this citation, it seems incomplete
  • 49: Be consistent about publisher locations; all or none.
  • JHU Press—I would write out all publishers, and link the first occurrence.
  • Books, pdfs, and archived news sources (for example 31; NYT is not going to issue a correction for a story written in the 1920s) should not have retrieval dates since they are not live webpages subject to change.
  • I would get rid of via anything, since that's already obvious in the url and just serves to advertise Google Books or other websites.
  • All print sources should have either ISBN or OCLC, if published before ISBNs came into use.
  • I'm opposing due to serious issues with several of the sources, and recommend that the nominator withdraw the submission in order to resolve these issues before nominating again. Catrìona (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Catrìona, I'm just getting to this now partly owing to time differences and partly to commenting on general discussion on WT:FAC, and would like to hear your thoughts on the above responses before considering any action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Kew Gardens' quick effort to fix some of the issues listed above. However, I'm skeptical about the arguments that the Bommer sources are reliable, per above. It seems like if they are to be used, it might be best to withdraw this nomination and establish consensus on RSN first. Since this is not a complete source review, I am changing the title to "comments" but I am still opposing for the moment as I don't think my concerns have been adequately addressed. In particular, I am concerned about the two sentences in the lede which are supported by photographs, which seems like original research to me. Whether the nomination is adequately prepared is something that the coordinators can assess. Catrìona (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy specifically prohibits the use of images, per Epicgenius's comments?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Catrìona: I am not sure if you saw my comments.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I did not realize that you changed your username, which is presumably why you have not gotten my pings. I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks again for taking up my nomination.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had been pretty clear above. For the photo, as WP:UGC, it fails WP:RS, even if it weren't clearly original research to derive the claim, "Express service is noted on trains by a red marker with the terminal and "Express" underneath it.", from a photo with minimal text. In addition, there are still several references to nycsubway.org, more UGC. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Some of the images on nycsubway.org were taken by Marc Pitanza. Some of his other images are in the Staten Island Rapid Transit book published by Arcadia a part of its Images of America series and are accepted as reliable. In fact, some of his images in the book are on nycsubway.org. How does just being on nycsubway.org make it. Per WP:OR, original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the source. In addition, To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Current source 123 is directly related to the topic as it is an image of the spur for the West Shore Branch of the railway. It supports the material being presented by showing that the connection between the two has been severed. It is clear that it was not photoshopped in any way. The date is accurate and the location is accurate. The picture taken was not done for a personal motive other than to depict the state of reality, and the present condition of the spur. The only citations referring to nycsubway.org are images. I removed the red marker note because it is too esoteric, and does not belong in the lead. In my previous FA nomination for the article I showed that Ed Bommer is an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. A thorough response would be appreciated. While it seems like that this nomination is on the path for failure, I have the intent of doing as much as I can so it can pass. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I am not sure if you have seen this response. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

I conducted this article's first GA review and missed the copyvios the first time around. Sorry about that. Anyway, it seems like a few phrases in the "Freight Service" section still copy from other pages. Otherwise, I think the copyvio issues have been largely resolved. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. It copied from an older version of this page. There is a [18] in the text, which comes from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Staten_Island_Railway&oldid=639526848 --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: In response to your question in SN54129's section: Yes. There's still too much detail in a few paragraphs, when they can be summarized in just one or two sentences.
For instance, consider condensing this paragraph in the 20th century section: The number of SIRT passengers decreased from 12.3 million in 1947 to 4.4 million in 1949 as passengers switched from the rail line to city-operated buses due to a bus-fare reduction. On September 5, 1948, 237 of the line's 492 weekday trains were cut; express service would be reduced during rush hours, and all night trains after 1:29 a.m. would be cancelled. Thirty percent of the company's employees were laid off. On September 7, 1948, Staten Island Borough President Cornelius Hall continued to rally against the SIRT cuts at a Public Service Commission hearing in Manhattan. Commuters testified that trains were missing ferry connections and being held at the St. George Terminal during rush hour to wait for double boatloads of passengers; the trains had previously pulled out after each ferry unloaded. On September 13, 1948, the SIRT agreed to add four trains and extend the schedule of four others. Nine days later the Interstate Commerce Commission allowed the SIRT to abandon the ferry it had operated for 88 years between Tottenville and Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and the ferry operation was transferred to Sunrise Ferries of Elizabeth, New Jersey on October 16.
This is a whopper of a paragraph that most readers will skip over. Since there's already a history article, we only want to give the key points in the history section. I would say that this section would benefit from an inverted pyramid style of writing, except on a smaller level. If you must write about a certain event like the 1948 service changes, I think you should only include the most essential info - for instance, that train service was reduced by more than half, and after backlash, service was slightly increased and the ferry to Perth Amboy was abandoned.
If you have time, look over the section again, but with a neutral perspective. I suggest printing out a copy of the article and then looking to see what else doesn't absolutely need to be in the history section. epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I will do so. How is this not in a neutral perspective? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I cut it back. Is it sufficient?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, by "neutral" I meant someone who is looking at the article as a reader, not as an editor. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I'll look at it tomorrow while I'm on the Staten Island Ferry. epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SN54129[edit]

Here from WT:Featured article candidates#Staten Island Railway. I see MOS issues also, per WP:FA?.2, regarding both WP:LEADCITE and MOS:SANDWICH. These points are certainly easier to rectify than the OR concerns indicated above but are also less fundamental. ——SerialNumber54129 11:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH Dealt with–thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of the issue. I will see what I can do with WP:LEADCITE.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for your helpful comments. I have been working to resolve both of these issues. If possible, could you evaluate what I have done and offer more suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to look at my nomination.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Should I split off the service information in the lead into a part of the Current use section and modify the Passenger service section? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: Sure. That sounds like the best thing to do, actually. Maybe we can include one sentence about the service pattern in the lead. Something like this: SIR operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, providing local service between St. George and Tottenville, along the east side of the borough. The fare-free aspect and the peak express might be the only other things that need to be included from what is now the second and third paragraphs. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for the suggestion. How do you think I should split up the passenger section?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Is there anything that should be removed entirely from the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: I split it up into accessibility and former lines sections. I think you're giving too much weight to the opening of the Arthur Kill station in the "Passenger service" section; it only needs one or two sentences at most, not an entire paragraph. You should also try shaving a few details off the History section. It's more or less 15,000 characters of prose; this entire article has 30,000 characters of prose, so there's still a lot of detail about history, relative to the rest of the article. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Also, should the former lines subsection be merged in with the Branches and stations section? I will see what I can cut back.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Should I cut back the history further? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Are there any other issues you found? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Nick-D[edit]

There are quite a few links in references section to newspaper stories sourced via NewsLibrary.com, but none of these seem to work without an account there. Are these links of any value? Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I have removed them. Are there any other suggestions you have concerning the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harry[edit]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This is still open so I'm assuming the coordiantors want to see some more feedback, but I'm guessing the reason it's not attracting any substantial commentary is the outstanding oppose above. A bit of a rock and a hard place. I'm afraid I agree withe Catriona/Buidhe that this article is not based on high-quality, reliable, third-party sources. It appears to be based on various (24, to be precise) documents from the MTA website (which, as the owner/operator of the system, is not a third party), when it needs to be based on books and other histories published by heavyweight publishers. You also have multiple questionable sources. For example, what makes the following high-quality reliable sources:

  • The Third Rail Online (FN6, cited 22 times)
  • A Google document (FN9, cited five times)
  • Jersey Central Railway Historical Society Chapter
  • New York Railroad Club
  • progressiverailroading.com
  • gretschviking.net
  • nycsubway.org

Add to that that the formatting or the references is inconsistent and messy. Publishers locations are not compulsory but generally included in FA-level articles; likewise, books and other multi-page sources are usually listed in a separate bibliography and cited short form inline. The "work" field in citation templates is for the name of the publication, not the web address (eg |work=Wikipedia, not |work=en.wikipedia.org); if there isn't a name, leave the field blank and just use |publisher=. I'm seeing inconsistent capitalisation and missing punctuation in titles (eg Free ride to commit a crime Elimination of fare for most on the Staten Island Railway allows trouble-causing youths to get on and off at will). The formatting issues alone in my opinion show that the article is not FAC-ready. If they were the only issue, I'd be willing to offer help and advice, but there's no point in neatly formatting references to to self-published sites and user-generated wikis, because those will never be acceptable sources for a featured article candidate. I know this is disappointing. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, but the sourcing needs major work before it's ready for FAC. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, cite every piece of information to the strongest source you can find (books for the history, news articles for specific events; the MTA is fine for operating details) and then re-evaluate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thank you so much for being willing to look over the article. I understand that there are many issues, and while it seems unlikely that all will be able to be dealt with on this nomination attempt, I intend to work hard to resolve any issues that exist with the article. I have removed the links to the New York Railroad Club, progressiverailroading.com, and significantly reduced the usage of the google docs and the JCRHSC. The Third Rail source is a transcribed version of a book, which should be okay. I will look to reduce use of documents from the MTA website. I don't know how the use of images from getschviking.net and nycsubway.org don't work. Clarification here would be appreciated. I will work to deal with the formatting of the references. While you suggest I withdraw this nomination, I will not do so, since I believe that I can fix the aforementioned issues. I hope that you will provide additional feedback that will help me deal with these issues. Thanks once again for taking up the nomination and for throughly mentioning major flaws with the article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: I have fixed the work field and added the locations of the publishers. Would you suggest I add New York, New York for the New York City newspapers as well? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm happy to offer what advice I can while you work on addressing the sourcing issues. My best recommendation would be to find the best, most reliable, account of the SIR and use that for everything you can, then use news articles to fill in the details, and other sources to fill in any gaps. But user-generated content is never going to be an acceptable source, and hobby sites and self-published sources will only be acceptable in rare cases.
And no, newspapers don't need locations; they're standard (but not compulsory) for books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Thanks so much. What is the issue with using images as citations? The images were not photoshopped, the dates were not altered to misconstrue the facts, they were taken objectively–with the goal of showing how the South Beach Line and West Shore Lines looked at that particular time, the locations that these images are supposed to be of correspond with their actual locations. I have also fixed the capitalization and missing punctuation issues. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Credit to Kew Gardens for prompt engagement re. issues raised, but I'm going to archive this now. We generally close noms that receive an early withdrawal recommendation but I refrained in this instance to see if in fact the sourcing concerns could be dealt with quickly; that Harry also has serious concerns in this area after almost a month reinforces the impression that the nom was premature. Pls continue improvements outside the FAC process, ideally involving Catriona/Buidhe and Harry (and any of the other reviewers who are interested), before renominating. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Staten_Island_Railway/archive2&oldid=939447949"