Talk:Jamaica–179th Street station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 22:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Am giving this article a Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2017 (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:
 * Checking some things out but so far it all looks good. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead section seems like it doesn't contain enough of a claim of notability but we can discuss. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * All the fultonhistory.com refs are mangled or dead - Checklinks is giving me a 500/Internal server error on Ref #s: 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 38, 45. StationReporter.Net (in external links) is dead. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * This is On Hold until the refs are fixed/adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool - all looks good. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Very stable, no edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * No problems found. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well-done. Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I cannot proceed with this Review until the referencing issues are corrected. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review so far. The dead links should be fixed shortly, though the worst case scenario is that the links can be removed entirely with only the text reference. epicgenius (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed 17 or 18 refs, and I couldn't retrieve the other 2 or 3 so I left them blank. epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, you work fast! Hey, is it possible that someone got them saved on the Wayback Machine? Shearonink (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And no, the robots.txt for that website prevents archiving. epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats - it's a GA. Thank you for all your hard work, Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed 17 or 18 refs, and I couldn't retrieve the other 2 or 3 so I left them blank. epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, you work fast! Hey, is it possible that someone got them saved on the Wayback Machine? Shearonink (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And no, the robots.txt for that website prevents archiving. epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats - it's a GA. Thank you for all your hard work, Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Readthrough issues
The only problem I found is some of what I call "reference-stacking" - where there is a long line of references that interrupt the main text. These will have to be bundled together, as you did with Reference #26.
 * In the History section at the end of:
 * ...of the IND Queens Boulevard Line as its original terminus.
 * ...the tracks ended at bumper blocks, and the tunnel at a bulkhead.
 * ...with the board's 1940 budget allocating funding for the station.
 * ...in order to "provide a more satisfactory terminal" for the line.


 * In the Station layout section, at the end of:
 * ...extending approximately .25 miles (0.40 km)[51] to around 185th Street.
 * ...operates at a far lower throughput (only 17–18 trains per hour during peak hours).

These are the only remaining issues - I know I don't have to do anymore proofreading at the present time. Shearonink (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the reference stacking and simply combined references that were duplicate. epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)