Talk:103rd Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 21:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.

Infobox and lede

 * "started on" "began on"

History

 * Link first instance of New York City
 * I don't love the use of "in which it would construct" but I don't know the best way to rephrase
 * "to allow trains to be stored" "to allow for train storage" to simplify phrasing

Construction and opening

 * No comma after "Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn"
 * "proposed lengthening the platforms"
 * What became of the contract to remove the original entrance? That thought seems to fizzle out a bit
 * "an compromise" "a compromise"

Service changes and station renovations

 * Link the first instance of Columbia University and Morningside Heights
 * Why did skip-stop service end?

Station layout

 * Citation needed tag needs to be addressed

Design

 * "original IRT, the station" "original IRT, 103rd Street station"

Exits

 * Good

In popular culture

 * Currently reads as trivia; if the station is integral to the Burroughs book, that should be expanded upon. I've seen Black Swan enough to know that mention is trivial

General comments

 * Images look good and are relevant to the article
 * No stability concerns in the revision history
 * Copyvio score looks good, ignore the mirror site

Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! —  Ghost River  22:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With no response from the nominator in seven days, as well as no response on their other GAN, I'm failing this one. Anyone is welcome to renominate at any time. —  Ghost River  21:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this review has been closed as failed, so sorry for the late response - I did not see this until just now. I can tidy up most of these relatively quickly and renominate it. Just a heads up if you're interested in reviewing again. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As you can tell from my uncharacteristic absence in getting to this, it may be difficult to get me to rereview as I continue to deal with health and personal issues. However, it's a short article, and even if I cannot rereview, I'm sure it will be picked up in short order. —  Ghost River  18:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)