Talk:Second Avenue Subway/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplinks are a major issue. I would have enlisted them for you to remove had they not been so many. I would suggest you to check them yourself, perhaps using this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I am going to remove duplicate links. epicgenius @ 23:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've removed the duplicate links. epicgenius @ 13:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) @Sainsf: Pinging. epicgenius @ 18:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick update that I am pretty busy for a few days, I assure you I will finish the review next week. I have also stated this on my user page. Thanks for your response.Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 19:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: It's not a problem, as I have been improving this article for several years and only recently got around to the nomination. And thank you for reviewing this article. epicgenius @ 23:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Luckily not so busy today! I must appreciate all the careful research you have done on this article. Go through all my comments; the problems seem to be concentrated in the section "1960s–1970s: Original construction efforts": Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington Avenue Line became very overcrowded "very" may be omitted.
Ensure that each part of the article has at least one credible citation. An instance of this is: Although the connection only served Sixth Avenue Line trains, it was essentially the first part of the Second Avenue line constructed. A para or two have no citations at all.
provided over $600 million for New York City projects (equivalent to $4,258,000,000 in 2016) What does "equivalent" refer to here, the 600 million dollars or the worth of the projects?
However, the city soon experienced its most dire fiscal crisis yet. The stagnant economy of the early 1970s, combined with the massive outflow of city residents to the suburbs, led to a fiscal disaster for the city May be combined.
A general question: Where do you and where do you not include the present worth of the erstwhile costs?
The fourth phase of construction will bring the Second Avenue line through Chinatown...to reduce construction impacts on the Chinatown community. (in the subsection of this section) What does "will" refer to? When was this plan made and when was the info added? Does this need to be updated?

I will go through the sources a few days later. Rest looks good. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: I resolved the first four issues, but I'm not sure what you mean by the last two points. When you say A general question: Where do you and where do you not include the present worth of the erstwhile costs?, I don't really understand whether I am supposed to include the current price of each cost. Also, I don't know what you mean by What does "will" refer to, though I'll try to explain it (and it doesn't seem to need updating, since the MTA hasn't released any new plans for the Chinatown segment since the original proposal). Thanks for your patience. epicgenius @ 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, I want to ensure that you add conversions consistently. Not a strict GAN requirement, but such a nice article should not have any flaw :) For the next, I would like you to add when the proposal was put forth, and, if possible to add, when it is expected to be realised. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Thank you. I added the conversions just now.

And as for the second question, the MTA has no set timetable for anything past phase 1, though the entire line was proposed back in 2004. epicgenius @ 14:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. The article now meets all the GA criteria. I am glad to promote such an amazing work! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Thank you for taking the time to do the review. And thanks for promoting it!

epicgenius @ 14:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it had to be in the queue for ages... go on for FAC, this will succeed! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: No problem! I'll wait until the actual subway opens, though, then I will send it to FAC. I learned my lesson with One World Trade Center (which didn't pass, mainly because it changed too much over a short period of time). epicgenius @ 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's the trouble with these articles! But this seems much like an ancient dormant volcano... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]