Talk:Court Square–23rd Street station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 16:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and return to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you mark any issues fixed with comments or maybe the ✅ template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

✅
 * There are three dead links, which you can see by clicking the "External Links" option on the GA Tollbox menu.

History

 * This needs a little bit of context about the location, rather than relying on the lead to supply it.
 * Done. epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some explanation of Dual Contracts in the article would help maintain the flow, rather than just relying on the wikilink.
 * Done. epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Connections created
 * MTA is an acronym and needs introducing, so Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) on first occurrence.
 * ...at the cost of $8.5 million... should be "...at a cost of..."
 * ...the tower was built as part of the process of Citicorp splitting up its operations between its different buildings. Does not read well. Suggest "...the tower was built to allow Citicorp to split its operations between several different buildings." or similar.
 * most of the project was funded by Citi, "Citi" is shorthand for Citigroup, and it should be written in full.
 * ...and renovations to the station's mezzanine... Suggest replacing "renovations" with "alterations", to avoid repetition of "renovations".


 * Crosstown–Queens Boulevard Lines transfer passageway
 * The concept of "railroad north" is introduced here with no explanation. "Railroad south" is mentioned in the IND Queens Boulevard Line platforms section, where it is wikilinked. Personally, I think these terms are just confusing, but if using them is important to the article, the wikilink should be on the first occurrence.
 * I removed the confusing term. epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

IRT Flushing Line platforms

 * Exits
 * down to a waiting area/crossunder, where a turnstile bank provides entrance/exit from the station. Use of the slash is not recommended by WP:MOS. Suggest both could probably be replace by "and".
 * Done.
 * The rest of this paragraph includes three bracketed clauses, which interrupt the flow of the text. Suggest removing brackets, and using punctuation and possibly more words to improve flow. So: and the northbound platform's elevator (within fare control) also leads to the underground mezzanine might become "and the northbound platform's elevator, which is located within the fare control area, also leads to the underground mezzanine" for instance.
 * Done.

IND Queens Boulevard Line platforms

 *  (Ely Avenue was the former name...) This does not need to be bracketted.


 * Exits
 * This station has three entrances/exits. Another use of slash.
 * Done.
 * the full-time one is at the extreme north (geographical east) end. If "railway north" is confusing, it is even less clear what this means. Expand and remove the brackets to improve clarity.
 * Done.
 * one High Entry/Exit Turnstile. Another use of slash.
 * Replaced with "full height turnstile", although it would have otherwise been "High Entry-Exit Turnstile". epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A single staircase from each platform go up to a raised crossover... A mix of singular and plural. Suggest "Single staircases from each end go up..."
 * Done.

IND Crosstown Line platform

 * ...there is a bell mouth that splits the 2 tracks into 3 tracks then again into 2. The bellmouth provides the space for the tracks to split, and is not the cause. Suggest "...there is a bell mouth where the two tracks split into three, and then converge back into two." or similar. Small numbers should also be spelled out.
 * Done. Also, according to the sources, this seems to be a reversing track, not a siding. epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The elevator project, originally expected to begin in 2018 has been delayed to 2019. Needs a second comma after "2018" to terminate the parenthetical clause.
 * Done.


 * Exits
 * All fare control areas are unstaffed, containing just full height turnstiles. The main one... It is unclear whether the main one is a fare control area or a turnstile. Clarification needed.
 * Clarified: it was the fare control. epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After the IND 63rd Street Line was connected to the Queens Boulevard Line in December 2001 (a project known as the "63rd Street Connector"), Suggest removing brackets, so "December 2001, as part of a project known as the "63rd Street Connector", " or similar.
 * Done.
 * In addition, there is a bourgeoning art community due to the presence of MoMA PS1 and 5 Pointz, as well as a 15,000-square-foot (1,400 m2) supermarket proposed for the area. "as well as" does not work well, when the first part refers to something that already exists, and the second is about a proposal. Suggest "In addition, there is a bourgeoning art community due to the presence of MoMA PS1 and 5 Pointz, and retail facilities may be improved as there is a proposal for a 15,000-square-foot (1,400 m2) supermarket to be constructed." or similar.
 * I separated these into 2 sentences. epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That is the text reviewed. I will move on to the refs next. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead
The lead should introduce the subject and summarise the main points of the article. It is perhaps a little brief, but serves its purpose.

The formal bit

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments above
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Well done on an interesting article. There are a few things to sort out, but nothing too onorous, I think. I am putting the article on hold for now. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Epicgenius finished the last few issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. All items have been addressed, and I am pleased to be able to award the article GA status. Keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)