Talk:C (New York City Subway service)/GA1

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

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 June 2019 (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:
 * - Maybe clarify "Manhattan" to "Midtown" since the B and D also use the Eight Avenue Line in Manhattan, but are both orange.
 * - What is a "uniform service pattern"?
 * - Did the A begin running fully local at night then? If so, please clarify that.
 * - Again, if this is tied to the 1992 change, make that clear, otherwise seperate them.
 * - Same request as above.
 * - "Lower" compared to what? Maybe specify numbers for comparison.
 * - The order of these two sentences should be flipped or they should be rephrased.
 * - Which R46 trains? All of them or just one of the years? Please clarify.
 * What standard is used for determining the connections for the route chart? I wasn't aware of a PATH connection at W4. Does one exist? Is it within the station?
 * What standard is used for determining the connections for the route chart? I wasn't aware of a PATH connection at W4. Does one exist? Is it within the station?


 * All 1A issues solved. As for the PATH station, it is next to the station and is similar to a connection to a SBS bus line. Its not within the system. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * No concerns exist here.
 * 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:
 * A list of sources exist and follows guidelines
 * 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:
 * I have significant concerns about www.erictb.info, thejoekorner.com, Second Avenue Sagas as self-published sources.
 * Addressed thejoekorner. I added "via=" and the real publisher. Also removed the Secondavesaga source as it did nothing to help. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed most of the erictb sources. For the 9/11 sentence, I added SecondAveSagas for the MAP only. The map is by the MTA. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the improvement. However, I am unwilling to promote this without the removal of all citations to erictb or thejoekorner.com, with the exception of images of MTA documents. Could you clarify the remaining citations to those sources, by either explaining to me why they should be permitted to remain or replacing them? Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TheJoekorner refs are for MTA documents and transclusions. No additional info is being told by Joe himself (Thats why via= is there). Also see the G train article. As for that one Second Ave Saga ref that I added, it is because it contains an official MTA Image of the service change after 9/11. The erictb sources are placeholders and they will hopefully go away soon. The first instance of it is guaranteed to as it does not add to that sentence (It is only kept for the refname). The other two instances, I am trying to find a replacement source. It is very hard and do you suggest removing if no source is found? Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the quick response. With the two other instances, my instinct would be to leave it and wait to promote it once those sources have been replaced because they seem plausibly accurate and would likely to be supported in another source. However, I would also be open to their removal. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will try my best to replace the two Eric sources. I really want to get this promoted in this review and will do what it takes. If I cannot find any sources, removal may be the best option. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No indications of original research
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Some copyvio appeared on Earwig, but it was a reasonably unavoidable construction. If possible, rephrase:
 * Done <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 13:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * I am unaware of any overlooked aspects and it seems to cover the logical topics, but something significant could be absent.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * I would prefer the inclusion of a prose route description, but other route GAs lack it, so it clearly isn't expected.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Definite negative perspective in parts, but this is reflective of the general coverage of the topic.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No recent issues and no reason to believe that issues will arise.
 * 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:
 * All images, including those under trademark, are used appropriately.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * While some images would be improved by alttext, particularly the route bullets, this is not required and the captions are satisfactory.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Please address the above concerns All concerns have been addressed.

Thank you so much for taking this on. I am on a trip in Chicago at the moment so the review may be a bit slower than my usual response time. I will absolutely address these issues. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 13:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Section break
I have successfully removed the Self-Published-Sources. All Erictb refs are gone, the Second Ave Saga is a MTA document, and JoeKorner is as well. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)