Talk:Scarborough station (Metro-North)/GA1

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

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be taking on this review. I'm a train buff myself, so this should be fun. You should get some feedback soon, but I'm admittedly off-and-on with my reviews. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, awesome. I see you're from New York too, I lived there and I'm now in college in California, but I've met quite a few of New York's WikiProject members at various events. Not sure I've met you though, nice to meet you and thanks for reviewing this.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And as you can tell from this article, I'm more the history buff (the article's prose largely pertaining to history), so I still feel the article needs more fleshing out with regard to operations.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you! I have been incredibly lame and have not attended any of the numerous WP:MEET/NYC events. One day, one day.Before we move forward with the review let's discuss some of these initial concerns. First, I see lots of unreferenced areas in this article. While none of this seems likely to be challenged, verifiability is a must in order to meet the good article criteria. You also mentioned the article may lack operational information. I'd say let's focus on this before I go any further. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 00:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I had neglected attending New York events for a while, but once I attended WikiConference USA, I've attended quite a few since; Wikipedians are great in person. So I'd strongly recommend attending one. As for this article, much of the uncited information was added by Bob Little (User talk:BigDisaster), a fellow member of the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society and pretty much the go-to guy for information on Scarborough's train station and post office. He runs a group called "Save Scarborough" which is working towards the refurbishment of the old station house; from what I've heard, there are propositions every year to tear it down.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  01:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear about my involvement. It's not that I'm not willing to help, it's more that as the reviewer, I do so along the way, rather than prepare the article for the review itself. Sloatsburg (Metro-North station), a GA-class article on a Metro-North station, may be good to go off. For the "Facilities" section perhaps reiterate the travel time/distance from Grand Central, along with a rough outline of the schedule, and any other information you may have.Sources don't necessarily need to be inline, but all information needs to be verifiable. Otherwise I have no way to distinguish it from original research. Unfortunately this will need to be taken care of for the review to pass. Cheers &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Stoatsburg article was useful for improving Scarborough's lede, but that's all I could get from it. Also, I don't see how the article would benefit from restating the travel time to and from GCT, especially in this short of an article. I also added the rough schedule. As for the unsourced information, I tackled it and found sources for some of it and removed the rest. Now there should be nothing preventing you from reviewing this article.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  00:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As you noticed I've started the review, but time is against me and I won't have this done today. This should have been done a week ago, I apologize. I'm on wikibreak this Thursday–Sunday, but rest assured I'll have the review for your Monday. Thank you for your patience! &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 19:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's okay. I of course understand; the holidays are a priority.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  19:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Review
Thank you so much for your patience! These past two weeks are probably the busiest out of the year for me. I've completed the review in full:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Concerns

 * Lead
 * I’m guessing by "hamlet" we mean Hamlet (place). I was unfamiliar with this term. Should we link this?
 * done.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You'll have to bear with me on how strict I am with verifiability. The load of course doesn't require inline citations given the content is repeated and verifiable in the body of the article. I don't see anything about Rensselaer in the body, however (correct me if I'm wrong!).
 * fixed.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * History
 * The Briarcliff Manor village government purchased the station building in 1961, to house... Not sure about the usage of the comma. We need not include it solely to indicate what the inline citation is referring to, if that's the reason.
 * removed.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As with the rest of the Hudson Line, the Scarborough station became... Some of this I was unable to verify, particularly The station and the railroad were turned over to Conrail in 1976, and eventually became part of the MTA's Metro-North Railroad in 1983. This seems fairly straightforward and should be easy to find a source if it is not already repeated elsewhere in the article.
 * done.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's link Arts for Transit. Right now it is a redirect but has potential to be a standalone article, and in fact I think I'll add it to my to-dos :)
 * good idea; done.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Link Willet Hauser Architectural Glass
 * done.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Facilities
 * How is Track 1 powered, if not by third-rail?
 * It's not, diesel trains use track 1. The electric trains only use 2, 3, and 4.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Track 1 is usually used by northbound express trains, while Track 3 is usually used by southbound express trains. I believe you mean Track 2 and not Track 3.
 * fixed, thanks.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The station layout subsection is unsourced. Much of this seems not WP:LIKELY to be challenged, some of it falling under WP:BLUE in my opinion (the pictures are telling). The only part I'm unsure about is the information about the tracks 1 and 2. Any way to verify which direction they go? If not I think it will be alright, at least to meet GA criteria.
 * I'll look into this and get back to you; I'm trying to find a suitable source, but it's tough going.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the templates for discussion notice at the top, not that we could do anything about it. I hate how verbose those are! Overall I think the article is well-written and a pleasurable read. The above concerns should be easily addressable so I am placing the article on hold for now. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 01:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

While there are some parts that are still unverifiable, they are trivial and I think we have certainly met the good article criteria. As such I am passing this nomination. Congratulations! Been a pleasure working with you. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have a way to solve the unverifiable information problem; I'll implement it as soon as I am able.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  21:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)