Talk:Forest Hills–71st Avenue station/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Criteria[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review[edit]
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The prose seems reasonably clear and concise, with correct spelling and grammar. |  Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) | Article complies with the manual of style guidelines. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | References check out. Most are either to reputable news sources or government agencies. | Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | A couple of issues here. The part about George Harvey predicting that the subway would turn Queens Boulevard into the "Park Avenue of Queens" needs a citation. Also the information on the line opening has six citations, could that be trimmed down to fewer citations?  Done |
Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | Judging by the citations and prose there seems to be no original research. | Pass
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | Ran the page through the Copyvio Detector and there seems to be no red flags. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The article seems to cover the important details for a New York City Subway station. One comment is that it seems like there needs to be more discussion about where the stations exits are actually located. Done |
Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | The history section could use a bit more focusing. It feels like there's just a little too much focus on the early development around the station area and not on the history of the station itself. That's good information to include, it just needs to be a bit more focused. Done |
Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The article is neutral with no bias. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Article is stable. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All images are tagged and there are no fair use images. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | All images are appropriately used and have suitable captions. | Pass
|
Result[edit]
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass |
Overall a nice, detailed page on what appears to be a pretty important station in Queens of the New York City subway. This will be a good article with a little more focus in the history section, some additional information in the station exits section and some changes to the citations. Cheers! --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) |
Discussion[edit]
Please add any related discussion here.
- Thank you for taking this article up for review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Reviewer response: With those changes made, the article passes. Congratulations to all editors involved.
--RickyCourtney (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Additional notes[edit]
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.