Talk:63rd Street lines/GA2

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

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

 * The piping of Cross-platform interchange to "meet" is a bit of a WP:EASTEREGG and should be rewritten.
 * Done.

Extent and service

 * Overall I found this section very difficult to understand. Maybe I need to have a fresh look in the morning or maybe it's just inherently different to verbally describe the alignment of the lines.
 * Yes, it is a very complex description. There are two lines, and they have different "chaining" (i.e. they are measured from different starting points, under different "divisions" of the subway). Would a map help? epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the new introductory and improved concluding paragraphs make this section easier to approach. A map would be very helpful, especially for readers who aren't familiar with the subject. Adabow (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that the two lines meet at Lexington Avenue–63rd Street station is only stated in the lead and in the image caption, as far as I can tell. All information must be in the main prose.
 * Fixed.
 * Is there a reason Sixth Avenue isn't wikified?
 * This has been linked. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Background

 * Perhaps History is a better name for this section?
 * Done.
 * Transit Authority and The New York Times should be spelled out in full and linked on the first occurrence.
 * Done.
 * Both "Transit Authority" and NYCTA are used. Do they refer to the same thing? If so, pick one abbreviation and stick with it.
 * Yes, and done.
 * "Some groups" and "other groups" are weasel words
 * I have specified the groups. By the way, WP:WEASEL says that "some" and "other" would only be weasel words if they were unsupported attributions. I just took these words from the original article. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Other groups supported the 63rd Street proposal, though, saying that such a connection would worsen congestion on the already busy IRT Lexington Avenue Line." – makes it sound as though their preferred 63rd Street proposal would cause worsening congestion
 * Fixed - it was the 61st Street transfer that would be problematic. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "with tunneling westward in Queens, as well as in both directions under Welfare Island (now called Roosevelt Island)." – this is awkwardly phrased
 * Removed "Welfare Island".
 * A lot of the converted units are written quite awkwardly. For example, "38-foot-square (12 m)" should probably be rewritten as 38-foot (12 m) square or 38-foot-square (12-m square). Similar comments apply to conversions after words like high and wide.
 * Done, though this wording was a built-in function of convert. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. There must be a way for the template to output conversions in a neater way... Adabow (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The big block quote about the June 1985 delay should be paraphrased
 * Done.
 * "The connector was expected to be open by January 2001.[82] However, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks delayed the opening of the connector." – something must have happened before September to delay the January opening.
 * The January date was for limited off-peak reroutes, and the connector was supposed to open for daily service in August or September. I've added that. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary
I have listed a few minor issues. I will put the review on hold until they are addressed. Adabow (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * first section isn't easy to read at the moment
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * some weasel words need rewriting
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * external video link which looks dodgy
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * on hold, awaiting some improvements Looks good now. I will pass the GA review. I strongly suggest a map is added to the section describing the route alignments, if possible. Otherwise, great work! Adabow (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * on hold, awaiting some improvements Looks good now. I will pass the GA review. I strongly suggest a map is added to the section describing the route alignments, if possible. Otherwise, great work! Adabow (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * on hold, awaiting some improvements Looks good now. I will pass the GA review. I strongly suggest a map is added to the section describing the route alignments, if possible. Otherwise, great work! Adabow (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)