Talk:Flatbush Avenue–Brooklyn College station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 16 January 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 (starting January 15/18) Pass!
 * 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 (starting January 15/18) Pass!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for 7 days (starting January 15/18) Pass!
 * On hold for 7 days (starting January 15/18) Pass!

On hold for 7 days.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why the "Track Layout" box header needs to have a gradient? I get that those are the colours of the train routes but it seems unnecessary.
 * Removed.
 * "...were contracts for the construction and/or rehabilitation..." - The "and/or" can just be changed to "and".
 * Done.
 * There is a wiki article for Nostrand Avenue.
 * Done.
 * "The IRT Nostrand Avenue Line tunnels continue beyond the bumper blocks at Flatbush Avenue and Nostrand Avenue. They extend for several hundred feet to Avenue H" - Is there a reason why there are "extra" tunnels that can't be accessed by the trains?
 * I don't know. However, no tracks were ever laid, so I added these. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "The 1996 cast bronze relief artwork here is called Flatbush Floogies by Muriel Castanis" - Where is "here"?
 * Fixed.
 * The third paragraph in the Station Layout section has no references.
 * I tried to add some. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. My main concern with the new ref you added is that it doesn't mention which platform that sign is talking about. The image that is already included in the article "U-shaped connection...." is actually OK to support most of this paragraph. However, "When the 5 does not serve the station, 2 trains depart from both tracks" will still need a source or be removed.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I will look for a better source. epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The last couple of sentences in the Exit section have no references (including the table).
 * I added references to the table. The last sentence of the second paragraph still does not have a reference, though. Pinging . epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Refs #6, #7, #11, #15 doesn't seem reliable. Seems like all the contributors are just enthusiasts.
 * NYCSubway.org is simply transcribing what is said in the actual Dual Contracts. I found the primary sources for all of these. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref #10 appears to be dead.
 * Changed the URL.
 * Ref #13, #14, #17, and #21 don't seem reliable.
 * Some of these are images. Other GA's about subway stations (like Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike (IND Queens Boulevard Line)) use image refs. I am noting here that I didn't replace all the references yet. Pinging to see if he can find a replacement. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was more questioning the source rather than the image, however, it's been a long time since I wrote my last GA article (over 2 years) and it turns out that I've done the exact same thing. On that note, these references are fine.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Passing!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)