Talk:North Shore Branch/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 07:20, 9 March 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:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The following references have issues:

   Ref #4/zetlin is dead.

   Ref #15/nyc.gov is dead. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   @Epicgenius: There is, unfortunately, a rather large area of commonality between this article and http://jcrhs.org/B&O.html. The JCRHS article was written 2001/2004 and last updated in 2011, the content was added to this Wikipedia article in 2015. The WP article will have to be extensively re-written. This Review is on hold until the #2D issue of "putting it into your own words" is resolved. If you'd like to see the areas of concern just run the copyvio detector tool in the GA toolbox. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   I will have to fix that. I don't know which edits exactly the offending text was added in. I'm pinging the two main contributors, Kew Gardens 613 and Tdorante10, to see if they can help. epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   I think that I have dealt with that problem. There was one main paragraph that was the problem and I rewrote it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   Much better - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Hurrah for no edit-wars! Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   File:Citizens Mass Meeting in Protest Against Discontinuance of Passenger Service on North Shore and South Beach Rapid Transit Lines March 17, 1953.jpg needs an explanatory caption. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   I have added a caption.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am going to do a few more proofing readthroughs to see if I missed any problems/issues. I must say this article is overall looking pretty darn good at this point but please take a look at "References" section below. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

   This is now a WP:GA. Future improvements might include keeping the article up-to-date with news about the North Shore Branch's possible redevelopment and perhaps taking another look at the citations (bundling etc.). Congrats, Shearonink (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: On my last readthrough I did notice something - there are a number of times where there are multiple references in one long string (for example, in Route description, in History/Opening and 1900s). These references are basically interrupting the flow of the text, I think that WP:CITEBUNDLE is coming into play here.
There are two ways to deal with this:

1. Some of the refs could be deleted from sourcing the same facts or
2. The references could be bundled together (maybe the editor/nominator wants to retain the references for historical purposes, etc), then there would be one reference number for the multiple sources within the text with the sources all listed-out within the Footnotes. For an example of how to achieve this take a look at this article. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: Thank you for the feedback. I'll have to bundle these references later, then. epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: I have combined all refs so that there are no more than 3 references in each string. epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Visually much better - perhaps not the way I would have done it but that's ok. Going forward & thinking of possible future improvements I think that there is a bit of citation overload going on here, cite-bundling would be a good way to 1)Retain all the sources for historical purposes and 2)Increase readability in the main text - but how you've chosen to do it is your personal style and that's fine. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)