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

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kew Gardens 613 in topic GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 01:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


Opening statement edit

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: yeet –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pre-prose review comments edit

  • The bolding of every instance of a train's alphabetic name is not sanctioned by the Manual of Style; strip it out.
  • The train bullets should be thumbed, and labeled.
  • Citation Needed tags need to be resolved.
  • Make the stations table collapsible.
  • Citations [36] and [41] are missing their URLs, and [42] has a error in its date parameter.
    • The first, second, and fourth points would apply to other subway services' articles as well. I can try doing the first and fourth, but the second has been historically controversial in the past, I think. epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • I did the first and fourth points. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • Marked off accordingly. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
          • 36 and 41 are the same source and are not online. That point is done. [42] has an error as the journal cited was for both January and February, not just one month. I am not sure how to deal with that.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @Vami IV: All remaining issues have been addressed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • @Kew Gardens 613: Thanks for adding the citations, I really appreciate them. Just a note that you pinged Vami four times by adding four ping templates, and in the future, one ping should be enough. epicgenius (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • @Epicgenius: I didn't realize that they resulted in four separate pings, as opposed to one for the edit. I will take note.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lead edit

  • Would it be possible to talk about the bullet somewhere else? Maybe the "Route" section?
  • Footnotes A and B would be best in "Route", too, along with a discussion of that route.

History edit

  • Almost every paragraph in this section starts with WP:PROSELINE.
  • [...] World Trade Center (formerly known as Hudson Terminal). Delete the parenthesized text.
    •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @Vami IV: I disagree with your addition of "the" before E service. New Yorkers and the MTA refer to it as E train, E route, or E service. Announcements might say "E trains are not running between...", not "The E trains are not running..."--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Issues edit

  • As a result, Delete or replace with something else. The efforts to quell overcrowding are not necessarily a result since they are themselves actions taken to address a result.
  • [...] due to a 1975–1976 New York City fiscal crisis, [...] The 1975–1976 New York City fiscal crisis.
  • To further increase capacity, as part of the MTA's 2010–2014 Capital Program, the MTA is equipping [...] Is equipping? This was 5-6 years ago; have they finished?
    • Projects from capital programs regularly stretch years beyond their end dates, and the installation is ongoing.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • [...] which will allow for three more trains during peak hours on the Queens Boulevard express tracks (it currently runs 29 tph). This will also increase capacity on the local tracks of the IND Queens Boulevard Line. More present-tense.
  • Can "Homelessness" get a general rewrite? Try shortening the first sentence to For several decades, the E has hosted a large population of homeless people and has been nicked the "Homeless Express"., then elaborating why. If there's more to add to the section, I think it should be added, because the section feels a bit barren.
    • There is not much more I can add, but I can look around some more.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Route edit

  • Why is the only mention to this line's rolling stock in the infobox?
  • Footnotes A and B still have no citations.
  • Could you make the tables under this section autocollapsed? They're rather large and a pain to scroll past.

GA progress edit

No disambiguation links present. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pictures are free/tagged and relevant to the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

References are reliable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.