Talk:Grand Street station (IND Sixth Avenue Line)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review. Took the liberty of adding a relevant project to the talk page based on other articles already at GA.

• Lead: This is fine as a brief summary of some of the information in station layout, but currently doesn't cover the Second Avenue sub-section.
  •  Done.
• Station layout: "supposedly designed" is catching my attention - are the sources unsure whether or not this was true?
  • Clarified that the 4-track, 2-platform design was the original intension.
• Link Brooklyn
  •  Done.
• Second Avenue: Three duplicate links in the first paragraph: IND Sixth Avenue Lines, Manhattan Bridge, and Second Avenue Subway.
  •  Done.
• The link to cut and cover has a ".29" at the end, throwing off the link directly to the section. If the intention is not to link directly to the section within the Tunnel article, then modify the piping to remove the direct section link.
  •  Done.
• References: Cite #1 has a different date format to the others
  • That's an unusual case in that it's used in other articles. But I'll do it.
• Cite #2: I'd drop the nytimes.com bit and just have the source be The New York Times, which also needs to be in italics.
• Cite #3: NYT needs to be in italics.
• Cite #4: I'd do the same as the change to Cite #2 - however, if you're going to put (New York) in brackets afterwards, then you need to do that in Cite #1 as well. No italics here though.
• Cite #6: Access date?
• Cite #8: Currently a bit inaccurate. List the original publisher as the source and then add "via=Internet Archive". Internet Archive also shouldn't be in italics.
• Cite #10: Date format different to others. Also the title of the source is wrong and lists the website there for some reason as well.
• Cite #12, 13 and 14: NYT needs to be in italics.
• Cite #16: Needs to match the formatting of #1 and #4, whatever that may be. Same with 21, 22 etc.
• Cite #18, 19, 20: Need to be fully filled out to match your other citations.
• Cite #29: Different date format.
  • For all of the above: Doing, since the citation order has changed drastically since the review.
    •  Done.

That's the lot. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look at those. Placing it on hold for the standard seven days. Miyagawa (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Thanks for the review. I'll look these over during the next few days. epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: I've fixed all the problems outlined. I also reformatted one of the references that was added since you reviewed it. Let me know what you think. epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. Regarding the date format - there's nothing wrong with using that particular date format, only that an article should all have dates in the same format. The only requirement here would be that since this is a NYC subway station, it should be an American date format, which it is. Anyway, it's all sort now and I'm happy to promote based on this meeting the criteria for GA. Miyagawa (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)