Talk:Zoloti Vorota (Kyiv Metro)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 17:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I will start the review with the first section, returning to the lead at the end. Please mark any items that have been fixed with the {done} template or something similar. I am not in favour of striking out the text, as it makes it difficult to read, and the review is an important record of why the article was awarded Good Article status. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Construction

 * "The initial plans of the future Syretsko-Pecherska Line..." Suggest "of" should be "for".
 * "to intersect the Sviatoshynsko-Brovarska Line". Intersect suggests it cuts the Sviatoshynsko-Brovarska Line in half. Suggest "to connect with the Sviatoshynsko-Brovarska Line" or similar.
 * "at the Universytet station" This should just be "at Universytet station". There are several other occurences where station names are preceded by "the". It is not necessary as Universytet is a proper noun.
 * "Universytet's short central hall wasn't adequate" Avoid contractions in written English. So "Universytet's short central hall was not adequate...", or perhaps "the short central hall at Universytet was inadequate..."
 * "and the line's ongoing planning shifted the future station's location a few blocks" reads awkwardly. Perhaps "and the planners moved the location of the station further to the east/west/north/south (?)"
 * ✅ Reworded it a little bit.
 * "making the creation of the Kominternivska station no longer feasible." I am not sure what this is saying. Presumably it was the planned Kominternivska station that was moved, and as a result was called Zoloti Vorota. Because it was moved, it could no longer act as an interchange with Universytet. Try rewording to make it clearer.
 * ✅ Reworded a little bit. The original plan was to have the Kominternivska station intersect with Universytet, but because the station was moved a few blocks down, the Teatralna station was used as a transfer point to this metro line instead.
 * "Construction for the third line began in 1982" This is the first mention of the third line. Presumably it is the Syretsko-Pecherska Line. If so, it would be better if this was stated at the start of the section, so that we know that the planned Syretsko-Pecherska Line was the third line of the Kiev Metro. Then this would be much clearer.
 * "For some time, the Zoloti Vorota station served as the line's northern terminus, although constant expansion soon placed the station in between the Lukianivska and Palats Sportu stations, although there is an unfinished preceding station from the northernly direction named Lvivska Brama." "For some time" and "soon" do not seem to go together. There are two "although"s in the sentence, which does not read well, and "constant expansion" should probably be "continued construction". The order is difficult to follow. It mentions a first section with three stations, starting at Zoloti Vorota and ending at Klovska. Looking at the Syretsko-Pecherska Line article, the third station must be Palats Sportu, so its mention in this context is problematic. My suggestion would be "For some time, Zoloti Vorota station served as the line's northern terminus. Continued construction extended the line northwards, to Lvivska Brama station, which has not been completed, and to Lukianivska." Sorry, I seem to have found rather a lot to say about this section, but is important that the facts are clear for good article status.
 * "making the creation of the Kominternivska station no longer feasible." I am not sure what this is saying. Presumably it was the planned Kominternivska station that was moved, and as a result was called Zoloti Vorota. Because it was moved, it could no longer act as an interchange with Universytet. Try rewording to make it clearer.
 * ✅ Reworded a little bit. The original plan was to have the Kominternivska station intersect with Universytet, but because the station was moved a few blocks down, the Teatralna station was used as a transfer point to this metro line instead.
 * "Construction for the third line began in 1982" This is the first mention of the third line. Presumably it is the Syretsko-Pecherska Line. If so, it would be better if this was stated at the start of the section, so that we know that the planned Syretsko-Pecherska Line was the third line of the Kiev Metro. Then this would be much clearer.
 * "For some time, the Zoloti Vorota station served as the line's northern terminus, although constant expansion soon placed the station in between the Lukianivska and Palats Sportu stations, although there is an unfinished preceding station from the northernly direction named Lvivska Brama." "For some time" and "soon" do not seem to go together. There are two "although"s in the sentence, which does not read well, and "constant expansion" should probably be "continued construction". The order is difficult to follow. It mentions a first section with three stations, starting at Zoloti Vorota and ending at Klovska. Looking at the Syretsko-Pecherska Line article, the third station must be Palats Sportu, so its mention in this context is problematic. My suggestion would be "For some time, Zoloti Vorota station served as the line's northern terminus. Continued construction extended the line northwards, to Lvivska Brama station, which has not been completed, and to Lukianivska." Sorry, I seem to have found rather a lot to say about this section, but is important that the facts are clear for good article status.
 * "For some time, the Zoloti Vorota station served as the line's northern terminus, although constant expansion soon placed the station in between the Lukianivska and Palats Sportu stations, although there is an unfinished preceding station from the northernly direction named Lvivska Brama." "For some time" and "soon" do not seem to go together. There are two "although"s in the sentence, which does not read well, and "constant expansion" should probably be "continued construction". The order is difficult to follow. It mentions a first section with three stations, starting at Zoloti Vorota and ending at Klovska. Looking at the Syretsko-Pecherska Line article, the third station must be Palats Sportu, so its mention in this context is problematic. My suggestion would be "For some time, Zoloti Vorota station served as the line's northern terminus. Continued construction extended the line northwards, to Lvivska Brama station, which has not been completed, and to Lukianivska." Sorry, I seem to have found rather a lot to say about this section, but is important that the facts are clear for good article status.

Design

 * "because of the depth at which the station is located at." The second "at" is not needed. "because of the depth at which the station is located."
 * " is nearly analogous with" Suggest "is similar to"
 * "At the time of the redesign, the station's construction based upon the original utilitarian design still continued. The new design was created in the form of a Kievan Rus' temple, featuring unique mosaic pieces spanning across the entire station." This needs a bit of expansion. Was the new design purely cosmetic, if construction to the original plans was continuing? There are several issues with grammar. For the last part, I suggest something like "The new design was based on the form of a Kievan Rus' temple, featuring unique mosaics situated throughout the station."
 * ✅ Reworded to make clearer.
 * "were installed in the aperture between each of the mosaic stripes" Is this correct? Aperture suggests there were openings between the mosaic stripes. If there were no openings, then "were installed between the mosaic stripes" would be better.
 * "although that wasn't economically feasible and was rejected". Again, a contraction. Suggest "although this was rejected as it was too expensive".
 * "were installed in the aperture between each of the mosaic stripes" Is this correct? Aperture suggests there were openings between the mosaic stripes. If there were no openings, then "were installed between the mosaic stripes" would be better.
 * "although that wasn't economically feasible and was rejected". Again, a contraction. Suggest "although this was rejected as it was too expensive".
 * "although that wasn't economically feasible and was rejected". Again, a contraction. Suggest "although this was rejected as it was too expensive".

Mosaics

 * "Walking clockwise from the beginning of the station to the end, one can essentially trace the history of Kievan Rus' through each of the mosaics." Avoid use of personal pronouns in this context. Suggest "The mosaics, which run in a clockwise direction around the station, depict the history of Kievan Rus'" or similar.

Lead
The lead section should serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. It should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. (See Manual_of_Style/Lead_section) It fails in this because most of the information in the lead section is not mentioned in the body of the article. Have a go at moving the information in the lead to the appropriate sections of the article, and then summarise the whole article for the lead. There are also some specific issues with grammar.
 * "near the city's eponymous Golden Gate, for which the station is named for." This suggests that "Kiev" means "Golden Gate", but this is not supported by the article on Kiev. Instead it is Zoloti Vorota which means Golden Gate, so I suggest "near the city's Golden Gate, from which the station takes its name" or similar.
 * "a feat widely regarded throughout the world." Being beautiful is not a feat, and I think we need some non-Ukranian sources before we can say it is widely regarded throughout the world. The Telegraph article can be found here
 * "a feat widely regarded throughout the world." Being beautiful is not a feat, and I think we need some non-Ukranian sources before we can say it is widely regarded throughout the world. The Telegraph article can be found here

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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I will put the article on hold to give you time to address the issues raised. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At this moment, I am not able to fix the issues with the article; the earliest that I would be able to address them would be on Friday. I will be out of town and won't have any access to internet. If we can hold off on pass/failing this article until Friday, that would be great. § DDima 05:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been no movement on this review for over a month now, so I am failing it for the time being. You can renominate it when the items mentioned have been addressed. Happy editing. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)