Talk:Smith–Ninth Streets station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 22:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Will begin review soon.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * "The first short section of the line opened on March 20, 1933" - "short" isn't needed.
 * Why is the word "temporary" in quotations in the next sentence.
 * "...and E trains from the Queens Boulevard line replaced them." --> "...and was replaced by E trains from the Queens Boulevard line."
 * "GG (later renamed the G)" - This renaming should be mentioned at the first mention of the GG train.
 * "...with leaks and broken concrete riddling the viaduct." --> "...with leaks and broken concrete riddling it."
 * "This shorter platform could only accommodate G trains..." - Why?
 * The new sentence: "This shorter platform could only accommodate G trains, which are only 300 feet (91 m) long", is still missing info. What is the length of the station?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I thought that I had clarified it enough, but I made it clearer.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm missing something but which reference mentions the station length is 660 feet?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be a nuisance to try to find a source for that. Most IND stations were built to be 660 feet, and 11-car trains did run at one point on some lines. However, there aren't too many definitive source indicating which stations were 660 feet long. To make it easier, I changed it to state that the station could platform 600-foot long trains–the length of F trains.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Given the current reference maybe we should just stick to something like "Due to construction limitations, the platform could only accommodate G trains; F trains bypassed this station on the same track."-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is me just being picky but from an accessibility standpoint, the gradient on the track layout diagram isn't needed.


 * For the station layout diagram, is there a reference for the level names (4F, 3F, 2F, etc).
 * What do you mean? Are you referring to the use of the labels 4F, 3F, 2F, etc., which are used to distinguish the levels or the features on each level? This information is cited in the following paragraph.
 * Yah thats what I meant but it looks like Epicgenius has taken care of this.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ I reduced it to two. ✅ ✅
 * "With an elevation of 87.5 feet (26.7 m), this station is the..." --> "With an elevation of 87.5 feet (26.7 m), Smith–Ninth Streets is the..."
 * "and three long escalators and one staircase going up to a landing, where three more long escalators" - Remove the "long" words.
 * The "Exit" subsection can be merged into its parent since it just has one sentence.
 * Regarding the Gallery, I think some of the images could be removed. Images 1 and 2 are pretty similar so one can be removed. Images 6, 7, and 8 are also similar so two can probably be removed. Regarding, the tiling images (3 and 4), I don't see the significance of including them in the article. With the remaining images I would try to merge them into sections of the article but I'm a little bit bias since I generally don't like to use Galleries. However, if you feel the images have signifcance and the gallery should stay, by all means just let me know (Galleries are NOT part of the GA criteria so which ever way this goes it will have no effect on the outcome).
 * Just my preference so feel free to disagree...I would move any citations in the middle of sentences to the end. I find it helps with flow. For example, "...or partially closed for a $32 million[18] renovation.[19][20]". I find citation 18 breaks the flow of the sentence.
 * Several refs need access dates (for example, refs 3 and 5)
 * References are still missing access/retrieval dates (for example, ref 3)-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

✅–I don't see any other references that need access dates.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) ✅
 * Some refs should have "subscription required" tags added to them (for example, refs 3 and 5)
 * This is not done. Please use something like the "url-access" parameter for citations.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

✅ – by Epicgenius
 * Ref 6 doesn't look reliable.
 * The information is obtained from ERA NY Division Bulletins from October and November 1968. These Bulletins have been deemed as sufficient in previous Good Article Nominations.
 * The source says "Adapted from ERA NY Division Bulletins October and November 1968" but there is no link to it or any proof that it actually is adapted from the bulletins. Given that the website's reliability is already questionable, it is possible that the author just added that line to make it seem credible. Does New York keep a public record of these bulletins somewhere?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the website's reliability is in question. The webmaster for the site worked for the TA. Joe Korman would not just add the line to the top. He is trusted. For instance, the subway car assignment information is cited from his website. Joe Korman gets it directly from the TA. While these Bulletins are not online, others are.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, I would say that Joe Korman simply republished an existing issue from the ERA bulletin. NYCsubway.org also does this sometimes. epicgenius (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A google search returns no results about Joe Korman. I believe both of you but I'm going to request for a second opinion.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

✅ I have replaced them. ✅ ✅
 * I think I've asked this in some of your previous nominations (or I may not have...I forget) but what makes nycsubway.org and Forgotten New York reliable?
 * Ref 25 is dead
 * What makes ref 23 reliable (looks like its just a blog?)

On hold for 7 days.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with most of the issues. Thank you for taking up the review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Something I forgot to mention yesterday: Ref 19 is also dead.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

✅--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pass!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Second Opinion Request
A short conversation has taken place above regarding if "thejoekorner.com" is reliable (see the 16th bullet above). Based on responses from the nominator and another editor, the website owner is trustworthy. However, I cannot verify this. I'm hoping another editor can give some input regarding this source. (For reference, we are talking about reference #8 in the article).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is proof that he worked in the TA:

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * http://www.thejoekorner.com/joe-bio-2005.html
 * http://www.thejoekorner.com/scripted-photo-display.shtm?* http://www.thejoekorner.com/Joe_003.jpg^Joe%20checking%20out%20for%20last%20time%20after%2033%20years%20-%204-28-2005
 * http://www.thejoekorner.com/indexfrm.html
 * These all come from his own website. Also, the second and third link don't work. If an a second source can be found talking about Joe, that would be preferable.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 11:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There was this WNYC podcast in 2007, but the audio has since been deleted (dead link). Joe copied the transcript to his own website here. epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a mention of him by Chairman Richard Ravitch.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok looks good. Thanks for providing the link.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)