Talk:79th 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: Ahmetlii (talk · contribs) 15:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The page complies with GA criterias, and looks good overall.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It could be better if you could use the reference of archive.gov for citing postal number, since it gives that information in the document. Also, you could mention notable buildings or other things around the station on a paragraph. There could also be a table for bus routes for transfer. I also did some edits on the text for a better read. I also couldn't verify the claim about line route change on 1948, it might be good to verify.
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It could be better if you could use the reference of archive.gov for citing postal number, since it gives that information in the document. Also, you could mention notable buildings or other things around the station on a paragraph. There could also be a table for bus routes for transfer. I also did some edits on the text for a better read. I also couldn't verify the claim about line route change on 1948, it might be good to verify.
 * It could be better if you could use the reference of archive.gov for citing postal number, since it gives that information in the document. Also, you could mention notable buildings or other things around the station on a paragraph. There could also be a table for bus routes for transfer. I also did some edits on the text for a better read. I also couldn't verify the claim about line route change on 1948, it might be good to verify.

This review provide no comments at all on how to improve the article. I highly doubt that there are no issues that need to be resolved before the article passes. I would urge you to retract your passing of the article, or ask another reviewer to help you out. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I noted as much on Discord in the engineering channel. I was hoping that ahmetlii can provide more feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my first review on GA, so I might be a bit mistaken about what should I do. I tried to give more feedback as you said.Ahmetlii (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've added a source saying that route numbers were introduced in 1948. After this date, new fleet were able to display route numbers. Older fleet were still designated without route numbers. Epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)