Talk:Conduit Avenue/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Will begin review soon.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:09, 21 April 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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * 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 for 7 days.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Pass!-- Dom497  ( talk ) 20:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 for 7 days.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Pass!-- Dom497  ( talk ) 20:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for 7 days.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Pass!-- Dom497  ( talk ) 20:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On hold for 7 days.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Pass!-- Dom497  ( talk ) 20:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the significance of having "Conduit Highway" bolded in the lead?
 * "...as part of the construction of Belt Parkway." --> "as part of the construction of the Belt Parkway."
 * In the first section in the "Etymology" section, link to the Brooklyn Waterworks article.
 * The entire "Etymology" doesn't flow well. The name of the conduit should be mentioned first, instead of "...for the conduit of the Brooklyn Water Works". Also, "the roads were constructed on the former right-of-way of the aqueduct" should be its own sentence.
 * "Brooklyn and Ozone Park and Lindenwood in Queens" - One to many "ands".
 * "The aqueduct was located on the north side of what is now Conduit Avenue, and was built on a right-of-way yet to be developed" - Yet to be developed at the time or currently?
 * What is the significance of having "Conduit Highway" and "Pipe Line Boulevard" bolded in the "History" section.
 * "The project was completed around 1942..." - None of the references provided support this statement. The article that mentions the project would be completed in 1942 was published in 1941 so it was just an estimate at the time.
 * Please add the Subscription Required tag to references that need subscriptions.
 * Ref 6 needs to be formatted correctly and include an access date. Also, "nycroads" doesn't appear to be reliable at first glance. Have there been any discussions about this source in the past?
 * This is me just being picky but some of the references include links to the "The New York Times" wiki article while others don't. For consistency, either link to it all the time in the references or don't link at all.

Good work!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I removed ref number 6 and made all the fixes you suggested above (though NY Times only requires subscription to five of the ten sources that are listed, and bklyn.newspapers.com is free). "Conduit Highway" and "Pipe Line Boulevard" redirect to this article, and so are bolded. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Pass!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)