Talk:M (New York City Subway service)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

I rode this subway a lot times from home to school. I review this.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 03:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Happypillsjr: Due to the Jewish holiday of Passover and the Sabbath on Saturday, I won't be editing from tonight until Saturday night at the earliest. I wanted to let you know to make sure that you know that I am still committed to addressing your review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: Understood.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr: In Kew Gardens 613's absence, I can address any issues that can come up. Just ping me with any issues you find. epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Happypillsjr: Due to Passover, I won't be able to do any editing from tonight until Thursday evening at the earliest. I am still committed to addressing your concerns with the article. Thanks for your patience and stay safe. @Epicgenius: Thanks so much for helping out!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Review[edit]

Infobox[edit]

  • The infobox looks good.

1914-1967[edit]

"..Marcy Avenue was originally a local stop, but beginning on February 23, 1960, all trains stopped there." → "... On February 23, 1960, all trains were Marcy Avenue was originally a local stop."

  •  Done The suggestion was also not grammatical, so I fixed it in a different way.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010-present[edit]

"Starting June 8, 2014, daytime weekend M service was extended to Essex Street as part of an $18 million funding project to improve subway service; late-night service continues to terminate at Myrtle Avenue."→ "On June 8, 2014, the weekend M service was extended to Essex Street as part of an $18 million funded project to improve subway service; late-night service continues to terminate at Myrtle Avenue."

"The M is at 90% of New York City Transit's loading guidelines during the AM rush hour. Ridership on the M has been growing very rapidly since the 2010 service change... In June 2016, peak train frequencies on the M route were increased, and it is expected that peak train frequencies would be raised again in the future."→ "During the AM rush hour, the M is at 90% of the New York City Subway's guidelines. The ridership on the M has been rapidly increasing since the 2010 service change...In June 2016, the peak train rate was increased on the M route and that peak train rate would increase in the future."

@Epicgenius: These words should be rephrased. -- Happypillsjr ✉ 16:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

MJ Service[edit]

  • Looks good.

Service Route[edit]

 Done Looks fine.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 23:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

@Epicgenius: Since Kew Gardens613 is absent, I think this article looks good in shape.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 23:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Happypillsjr: I don't think this page is there just yet. For instance:
    • http://www.erictb.info/linehistory.html#m is a self-published source
    • the following statements do not have inline citations:
      • The number 10 was assigned to the service in 1924
      • This merger opened up new travel options for northern Brooklyn and Queens in that it allowed direct and more convenient access to areas that were not previously served by those routes such as Midtown Manhattan (before the service changes, M train passengers had to transfer at least once if heading to Midtown, either at Myrtle–Wyckoff Avenues, Essex Street, Canal Street, Chambers Street, or Fulton Street). - this needs to be condensed as well. I've already done this one, but this raises the question of whether there are also other unsourced statements. If I were the reviewer, i wouldn't promote this yet.
  • These are supposed to be fixed first. Let's have Kew Gardens 613 take a crack at these before promoting. epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I missed that source but that sounds good.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 00:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Let's put this nomination on hold until find the right source.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 04:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: Is it possible that the documents could be uploaded to WikiSource or something similar? Otherwise, those should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsif, unfortunately not, since these are not freely licensed. epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

  • Same here too but I also couldnt find some good source for the M line between 1914 to 1967.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, Kingsif, and Happypillsjr: I just remembered that Happypillsjr has nominated this article for GA previously, though the nomination was later removed. Given this, it would be a conflict of interest for them to continue reviewing this article. I think we need to open a new /GA2 where Kingsif or any other interested individual (who has not been involved in expanding this page or nominating this article for GA) can take up the review. epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: The first issue I see is that there are still large parts without inline citations; I'll leave this on hold until that's fixed, then review it. Looks quite good and short so it shouldn't be much. Kingsif (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over two weeks with no action on this review, though the nominator has been active elsewhere. Looking over the article and nomination, I'm wondering why it was nominated at the time, since it was never cleaned up in preparation for nominating as part of a group of eleven nominations made by Kew Gardens 613 on March 13 (eight of which have already passed; congratulations!)—there are bare URL refs from before the day it was nominated that still haven't been fixed two months later. It's entirely up to Kingsif how this review proceeds from here, but giving the article some prompt attention so it is ready to be reviewed would be a good first step. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Kew Gardens 613 take this as the seven-day notice, but as it stands, refs need fixing first. Kingsif (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif and BlueMoonset: I have finished three class papers and have two finals left on Monday and Tuesday. After that I am going to address the issues with this article and other GAs I nominated. @Kingsif: Thanks so much for being patient. I really appreciate it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kew Gardens 613, it's been over two weeks. Kingsif gave a seven-day notice, and has been generous with allowing further time. I saw that yesterday you asked another reviewer for comments on one of your nominations; if you have time for that, you have time to finish this up and report back here. Thank you for your consideration and immediate attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of edits were made less than two hours after my last post, but Kew Gardens 613 has still not posted anything here, and it's now two weeks later. Kingsif, where does this stand? If there are still significant issues after all this time, perhaps it's time to close it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking up on this one. Yes, while there's only 2 apparent missing refs now, the structure of the service history is a little confusing. We could probably ask and get a simple answer from Kew Gardens 613, but it's another one where I think a little more time working on it when they're free and out of a review space (clear head, improving it to the best they can from their own sources and experience in editing this area) and it would pass almost straight away. I'd close it, also, because it's not the article with it's editors focus. I know that it was being worked on by Happypillsjr before (with the L service, which is still far off GA), so I don't where it stands in the NYC subway project, and perhaps we can send it back to them for some new love? Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: forgot a ping Kingsif (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset and Kingsif: What is the issue with the structure of the service history section? The only other issue that needs to be resolved are the two uses of Eric B's website, which I should find sources for soon.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The history is broken down in date sections, but some of them don't seem intuitive. And three of them mention 2010 (I haven't re-read these in depth, but if there's no overlap at least the headers need to change) Kingsif (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are my changes any better?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: Looking better! I'll give it a full review now, yeah? Kingsif (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif[edit]

  • Copyvio check clear - the 63% is from a forum post on May 22, 2020.
    • That forum post was from me! I was asking some people if they had ideas for where to get sources to improve this article. I was pointed to some newspaper articles and journal articles, which were helpful.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead is a bit too long for article length
  • Sources already discussed a bit above. Flickr used re. image information seems fine in the context. There are some inaccessible sources taken on good faith as the rest seem suitable and used appropriately.
  • Everything seems cited now, station table attributable to maps and primary docs fine
  • Infobox good
  • Images all free
  • Good use of route diagrams and tables
  • Appropriate use and spread of images
  • Prose:
  • Lead good, perhaps some sort of clarification on full-run terminals? (wikilink, brief description) - though still a bit long
  • Two sentences starting "However" near the start of the 1961–1976 section could be changed to read better.
  • Move QJ wikilink to its first mention
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The break between the paragraphs that start The midday M and The change was made permanent on November 12, 1995 feels like it's in the wrong place - the start of the second paragraph should be connected to the first, with a break maybe warranted later where existing alternative services are discussed. And I may be missing something, but I'm a bit confused about this part: rerouting Q service via the Montague Street Tunnel doesn't seem like a major change, but then the second paragraph quickly starts discussing the cancellation of parts of M service, and I don't see a connection? Could this part be expanded/clarified?
    • @Kingsif: I just clarified the point, which was not explicitly mentioned in the sources I had used. The M was cut back from the Montague Street Tunnel to provide capacity for the Q, to allow it to continue to run into Manhattan while the bridge was undergoing repairs. If this needs to be clearer, let me know. I feel like the paragraph would be too large if they were combined.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the AM rush hour - the rest of the article uses 'morning rush hour', which would also make sure readers don't confuse 'AM' for another service line
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on September 2 of which year?
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, hopefully a review of the content/structure of more recent history of the line in a few months/next year will make sure this is still appropriately weighted.
Kingsif (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M_(New_York_City_Subway_service)/GA1&oldid=965627606"