Talk:NYC Ferry/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 15:53, 12 September 2017 (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) 15:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The text is generally of a high standard, and the refs appear to be well done, including page numbers where the source is a multi-page document. I am not sure what has happened to the route diagram, which appears to be fine in most previous versions of the article, but not on the one dated 16:46, 31 August 2017. You might like to look into that while I review the article. ✅ (purged)
 * The lead should introduce the subject and summarise the main points of the article. Although I have not made a detailed assessment of it yet, it looks very short for an article of this length. I would expect three or four good-sized paragraphs, and again, you might like to be thinking about that. ✅

Background

 * Early ferries
 * One of the first documented team boats in commercial service... I suggest "team boats" could do with a little expansion, to stop readers clicking the link and not returning to read the rest of your article. Mention that they were powered by horses or mules would be adequate.
 * the construction of bridges and New York City Subway tunnels across the East River forced some companies ... to operate at a loss. "force" is not a good word choice, since presumably they could just have shut down. Suggest "resulted in some companies ... operating at a loss." unless there was a statutory requirement that prevented them shutting down.
 * despite competition from cheaper alternatives like the PATH. Again, PATH could do with a little bit of context. Suggest "PATH rapid transit system" or similar.


 * Revival of ferries
 * CFS2013 also suggested extra routes that could be added to the ferry system... Suggest that "CFS2013" interupts the flow, and it would be better to stick with "the study", since its name has already been mentioned.
 * The Rockaway ferry was eventually agreed to be restored when NYC Ferry started. This reads awkwardly. Suggest "The mayor's office eventually agreed that the Rockaway ferry would be restored when the NYC Ferry started." or similar.

Proposal

 * NYC Ferry, first proposed by the NYCEDC as the "Citywide Ferry Service," was announced by de Blasio's administration in 2015 as part of a proposed citywide ferry system that reaches through the five boroughs, though a Staten Island terminal has not yet been finalized. The tense changes unexpectedly in the middle of the sentence. Suggest "that would reach" and "had not been". That also resolves the issue with "has not yet been", where we have no idea of the date that the "yet" refers to. ✅
 * with an additional operating cost of $10 million to $20 million per year... According to the ref, this is an operating subsidy, and yet the following sentence says that Hornblower Cruises will only receive $30 million over six years, which I reckon is $5 million per year. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? ✅ (It was $30M per year)
 * the city will subsidize $6.60 per rider. Reads awkwardly. Suggest "the city will subsidize each rider by $6.60" or "the city will pay $5.60 per rider in subsidies". ✅
 * Some of the ferry's 6 proposed routes were to be operational in June 2017 (later moved to May 1), Should be "six proposed routes" as per WP:MOS, and suggest expanding the bracketed phrase to improve flow. So "... in June 2017, although this was later brought forward to May 1," or similar. ✅


 * Critical reception
 * In a July 2017 commentary for CityLab, Suggest some context, so "commentary for the web-based news site CityLab," or similar. ✅

Construction and opening

 * Planning
 * On March 16, 2016, Hornblower Cruises was selected as the ferry's operator. This is a single sentence paragraph. Suggest joining to the previous one, unless the refs provide sufficient context to expand it into a paragraph. ✅ (Moved to "Proposal")


 * Construction
 * There are several issues with tense in this section. ✅
 * Before the ferry could start service, the NYCDOT is required to approve... Suggest "was required". ✅
 * Department of Environmental Conservation ... should give NYC Ferry permission to use of the landings. Suggest "had to give NYC Ferry permission to use the landings." or similar, as "should" suggests there is some doubt whether they did, and the "of" is not needed. ✅
 *  was consulted so they can give permission Suggest "could give". ✅


 * Opening and high ridership
 * A 500-passenger boat was also loaned from SeaStreak... Suggest "borrowed from" or "on loan from". ✅

Operations

 * ...is $2.75, same as on other modes of transportation... Suggest "the same as". ✅


 * Fares and amenities
 * Riders could transfer... and Ferry tickets could be purchased... As most of this section is in the present tense, suggest "could" should be changed to "can". ✅
 * The 85-foot (26 m) boats can fit 150 people each. "fit" is an unusual word choice. Suggest "carry". ✅


 * Stops
 * The service will ultimately have 21 landings... Several tense issues in this paragraph, with a mixture of future (will), present (are) and past (would, remained, were). Suggest reworking to use a more consistent tense, particularly where single sentences use all three. ✅
 * The ADA-accessible landings... ADA is an acronym, so suggest some context, rather than just relying on the wikilink. So "The landings comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act..." or similar, which should still be wikilinked. ✅


 * Ferry fleet
 * The Navy Yard option, which the city preferred because of the Navy Yard's proximity to the "core operating area"... Suggest "because of its proximity" to avoid repetition. ✅
 * Renovation of the side was required to remove an existing pier and replace it with a new structure capable of docking up to 25 ferries and perform regular cleaning and maintenance. Presumably "side" should be "site", and add a comma after "structure". The final clause does not quite make sense. Clarify. ✅


 * Schedules and shuttle buses
 * The EIS provided for an extension of the Beach 67th... Suggest Environmental Impact Statement, rather than EIS, as it is too far from the original definition to remember what it stands for. ✅

That is the text reviewed. All of the issues are relatively minor, so I hope they are not too onerous to fix. I will move on to checking the references next.

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the review. I will resolve these a little later. epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead should introduce the article, and summarise its main points. Since it has been expanded, it does this well.

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:


 * That is the review completed. I will put it on hold, although I notice that you have already addressed most of the issues, so I look forward to being able to award it GA status shortly. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * All of the issues raised have now been addressed, so I am pleased to be able to award the article GA status. Keep up the good work! Bob1960evens (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)