Talk:Aqueduct Racetrack station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mackensen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~The lead section is too short; it should touch on history and ridership. The external links section should be pruned.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	~~I flagged several cases in the text, especially in the Ridership section, where I couldn't verify the cited claims. Paywalled New York Times articles accepted in good faith.~~ I think this is okay now.
	2b. 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).	~~This articles relies on several self-published sources; I'll address these in a longer comment below.~~ Concerns addressed.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~Images are all under a free license. I have a concern about File:Aqueduct Special Poster.jpg which I've raised on Commons.~~
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I added one missing caption and alt text.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hello Epicgenius (talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're potentially close here. My primary concern, aside from the verification problems in the Ridership section, is the use of (apparently) self-published sources such as www.nycsubway.org, The SubwayNut, and B24 Blog. I'm not familiar enough with these sites in particular to know whether or why they pass muster under WP:SPS. I'm aware that in rail transport we're often relying on "enthusiast" publications which aren't all that far-removed from being self-published, and sometimes the best sources for a topic are self-published sources like Thomas Taber's three volume history of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad. Are there discussions within Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation about the use of these sources? Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mackensen: Thanks for the feedback. I think it was here where it was established that in the absence of any other sources, nycsubway.org could be used as an acceptable source. However, I think the nycsubway.org source can be replaced if a better source is found. I think Subway Nut is good only for the actual description of the station (it doesn't pass muster on some historical dates), and the B24 Blog basically copies the data from the NYC Trackbook, which is a reliable source (though the actual track maps can't be found in the website I linked). epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think @Kew Gardens 613: has the page numbers for the latest edition of NYC Trackbook, so the references to B24 have been fixed accordingly. I removed some dubious claims that were sourced only to nycsubway.org, since it can be incorrect (especially since it was first set up as a blog or a personal website before becoming a sort of wiki). epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Epicgenius: that's excellent, thank you. I've flagged some new additions in the history section, including the operations from Hoyt–Schermerhorn which appear to be sourced to a personal site at Columbia. I'm also uncertain about the citation of 1981 EIS; it gives the travel time for the Aqueduct Specials but I didn't see the basis for comparison. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mackensen: The Columbia website is likely a reliable source. More likely it's hosted on Columbia's website because Joe Brennan works for Columbia; otherwise, this is a website that is fact-checked extensively. epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Epicgenius: I'm unfamiliar with Brennan; why is he reliable? Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mackensen: He's a professor/staff at Columbia University. I don't know if works by Ivy League professors are considered "reliable" (for real; maybe there are some professors who can be considered more reliable than others). He's also an Architect Technician, a "researcher in advanced fabrication and robotics at New York City College of Technology," and a NYIT professor. I don't know... would it be better if Brennan had put this webpage on an official website as opposed to columbia.edu subdomain, or as a book format instead? I'm just wondering, for future reference. epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Epicgenius: The way I understand SPS is that a self-published source is acceptable if the author is a recognized authority in the given field. The provenance of the website isn't the issue. Brennan's field doesn't appear to be rail transportation; he does materials/robotics. If he's written on rail transport/subways and those writings have been recognized by others in the field, then that might do it. Again, I think a good example is Thomas Taber. He was a well-known independent researcher and pro-railroading activist. He self-published three volumes of the DL&W which were reviewed in journals, are stocked in libraries, and are cited by other published authors. If Taber were still alive and published a website, we'd (probably) accept it as a source because he had an established reputation. I assume Columbia is like other universities in that any employee may request personal web space and do what they like with it, within reason. That doesn't give it Columbia's imprimatur. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mackensen: OK. Thanks for the explanation. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this GA review, and it is very helpful. I'll find a better source, since it seems like Brennan is not an established expert in this field (maybe an okay secondary source, but definitely not an expert). epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I expanded the context of the station with some sources and replaced the Brennan source. epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about this: "During the 1970s ridership at the station declined, from 1.1 million passengers in 1975 to 573,000 in 1979." The source has numbers for 1974–1979. 1975 represents a high point in ridership; it's not clear why. The 1974 number is closer to the 1979 number. What's interesting to me is that local ridership collapses but special ridership grows somewhat to compensate. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to investigate this further, since 1974 ridership seems to be lower than 1975. However, it is technically true that 1975 to 1979 saw a decrease in ridership. The source doesn't explain the increase in ridership in 1975, though. epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the poster, I didn't realize that it wasn't a scan of the poster. Sorry about that. Now I realize that it was from the Holiday train. I have been on it every year so I probably have a picture somewhere. Once I find it I will put it up. Also, thank you for your comprehensive review!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kew Gardens 613: that's perfectly fine, thanks for following up. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Google Maps links should stay. All the other articles in the NYC Subway have them (for consistency), and these street views are not easily accessible by dragging the orange guy onto the standard Google Map. The Subway Nut is already a reference in the article, so I won't re-add it. epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next question:

During the 1960s the extra fare was collected at special turnstiles at the three stations served by the special. Larger tokens were used

This passage is supported by no fewer than three inline citations, plus an endnote with another three inline citations. The MTA brochure is offline but accepted in good faith. There's an HTML comment indicating that nycsubway.org is reliable for this information, though not others. Why is it reliable, and which claims does it support? Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the page numbers. I don't know why @Epicgenius: made that exception so I can't respond to that. Is there anything other than that, and the better source needed for the April 28th date, that I can do?

Apparently there has been trouble in the past locating a source.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As we have better sources (e.g. ANS), nycsubway.org source is no longer needed. epicgenius (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're there and I'm passing the article. @Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: thank you both for your hard work on this article (now I need an excuse to wander out that way some time!) Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Thank you for the very comprehensive review. Other editors may have just passed the article without looking at the sources or the prose in depth. So, I really appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: You're welcome. For my part, I really enjoyed reading this one over and I appreciated all your efforts in improving and expanding the article (from 24K to 45K during the review!). Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Thank you for the review! You were a lot more comprehensive than some other reviewers that I have worked with. You looked at the sources to see if they were credible in the way that others reviewers don't. I am glad you enjoyed reading it. I hope to work with you again on other articles! Keep up the great work on getting rid of copyvios!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]