Talk:South Ferry/Whitehall Street station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up.

What makes the following reliable sources? I'm not saying they're not reliable, just that I can't find evidence that they are by looking on the website.
- ~~subwaynut.com~~
- ~~forgotten-ny.com~~
- ~~archaeologydaily.com~~
- ~~secondavenuesagas.com~~
  - I removed Archaeology Daily and Second Avenue Sagas. Subway Nut seems to have been removed already, but is used to cite images. Forgotten NY has something of a blog setup, but the website is usually reliable because several historians verify each other's info. epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the policy is on external links to Google Maps; I've posted a query at WT:EL, but if you can point me at a relevant policy statement that would be helpful.
- @Mike Christie: These links are used on thousands of articles. I assume they are OK because we have an entire citation template, {{google maps}}. Come to think of it, this is the first time this has come up in 30+ GA reviews of NYC Subway stations. Maybe you can ask Gfoley4, who initially added the links. epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for commenting at the EL discussion; Kew Gardens 613, you may want to comment there too. I don't have a strong opinion either way but am trying to figure out if there's a policy basis for going either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not going to insist that they all be removed, but the first one I clicked on shows a Iron Mountain truck, presumably in front of the entrance. This is not useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  It was supposed to be this view. But photobombs happen frequently, as you've seen. That view has now been fixed. epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not required for GA, but if you could find an archive link for the Staten Island Advance source that would be great.~~
The 2009 completion of the new South Ferry IRT terminal consolidated the two formerly unconnected stations: which two? As far as I can see we haven't mentioned any other stations to this point. Reading the rest of the sentence I can see it must be South Ferry and Whitehall Street, but I had no idea that these had previously been separate stations, so I'd rephrase here.

Done

The second was a double balloon loop opened from 1905 to 2009 and from 2013 to 2017, and served the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue and IRT Lexington Avenue Lines. The first was an elevated station opened from 1877 to 1950, and served the former IRT Ninth, Sixth, Third, and Second Avenue lines.: A couple of things here. First, can we make this "open from" rather than "opened from"? And then we need "which served" rather than "and served" in both sentences. Second, this is confusing to someone who knows nothing of the background.

Done If both these prior stations were on this site, how can they both have been open at the same time, with the same name, at the same place, and yet be different stations? Judging from the later text, these weren't at exactly the same location, so perhaps a slight rephrase would fix this. I did look at the MTA's line 1 schedule PDF, and it doesn't list two "South Ferry" stations.

This was a station on Manhattan's elevated lines. The system was, for the large part, separate from the subway system. There was no transfer between the two stations. The elevated station closed with the demise of the Third Avenue El in Manhattan. It was at the same location. There is no reason to mention this station on the timetable as it has been closed for 68 years.

I'm afraid I find the station layout confusing. I'm a Londoner and currently live in Long Island, and have ridden the NY subway and London Underground many times, but this isn't obvious to me. I'm not going to ask you to change what I'm sure is a standard across many articles, but an explanatory footnote or caption would be helpful. Does G mean ground level, and each B is a level lower? I understand the wall/track/platform notation. "Mezzanine" appears to refer to an area of the station that isn't any of the other categories; is that right? What is B2, and why is it listed separately when the mezzanine for B1 is not?

@Epicgenius: Do you know how to resolve this? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613 and Mike Christie:

Done. epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting The South Ferry loops consist of is uncited.

Done

of which only the outer one was operational until 2017: as written this means that after 2017 the other platform became operational too, which doesn't appear to be what's intended. Suggest cutting "until 2017" and finishing the paragraph with a statement about the end of usage of the platform.

Done

Not required for GA, but FYI, MOS:DATERANGE says not to use constructions such as "from 1989–2005".

Done

Again not required for GA, but you have some links that redirect back into this article, such as to South Ferry (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). If the section link is what's intended, I'd suggest fixing them to not redirect.
You introduce FONSI as an acronym, but never use it; I'd cut the acronym.

Done

Landscaping for Peter Minuit Plaza was completed in May 2010: it's not clear why this is relevant. Is this plaza around one of the ground-level entrances? I see from a later paragraph that it is; let's move the "which is above the station" up to the first mention of it.

Done

The station underwent renovations, signal room relocations, and extensive waterproofing work. The signal room, however, could be delayed until 2019.: The first sentence seems to contradict part of the second one.

Done I've finished a pass through. Because of the two stations, and the complex history, this is quite a confusing article, and some of my initial concern was dispelled by the time I got to the end, since I think it's the topic that's confusing, rather than the article. I'll read through again now I understand the history a little better and see if I can offer any more suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is very confusing. This station actually used to be two separate stations (the IRT loops and the BMT Broadway Line station). Then the loops closed and were replaced by a new IRT station that connected with the BMT station. Then the new IRT station was flooded and the old loops were put back into service, with a connection to the BMT station. Now the old loops are closed again and the new IRT station has just reopened... I'd have a hard time getting my head around that, too. epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment from a passer by - I presumed such large galleries or any galleries were no longer used as they have been replaced by adding a commons link for images, I am suprised if this is allowed for a Good Article but I stand to be corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @MilborneOne: Per WP:GALLERY, The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. So I have pared the gallery to 9 really illustrative images. epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through

Most points above are fixed. Here's what's left.

The external links. I'll have to think about exactly how to deal with this; I'm watching the WT:EL discussion.
The confusing nature of the topic. epicgenius, your short paragraph above explaining the confusion was very helpful. Could you put a version of that into the lead?
This station complex is the third on the site to bear the name South Ferry: this might be nitpicking, but I think some slight rewording is needed; the elevated station and the IRT station weren't on exactly the same site, though perhaps they were adjacent. In such a confusing article I think precision is needed. How about "on the site or nearby"? Or "in the neighbourhood"? Or even "the second on the site", and give the balloon loop, then add "there was also an elevated station with the same name that was open 1877-1950, next to the IRT station"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review. I have fixed the second issue, but I reworded the sentence about the three South Ferries a bit differently. epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits look good. Just the EL issue left; I'll sleep on it tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that almost none of the external links should stay; some are already linked from the footnotes, which is fine, of course. I also don't see sufficient reason for the GSV links; this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide or travel guide.

However, looking through the GA criteria, and reading the discussion at WP:EL, I don't think there's a justification for me failing it. I'm going to promote this article to GA, but I would suggest that the editors here either remove most of these links, or make some effort to get broader support for the EL approach taken here, so there is some discussion to point to the next time this comes up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the review!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Regarding the GSV and other external links situation, there doesn't seem to be a consensus either way, so this will be quite a complex issue. epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]