Talk:BMT Broadway Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 09:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): The "Description and service" section is unclear when it says that "This segment of the line carries the N and W trains from the BMT Astoria Line and the R service from the IND Queens Boulevard Line," before saying that the N, Q, and R join it at the next station. This should be clarified. This concern was adequately addressed.
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): ~~Reference 13 should be clarifies to specify what commission. An abbreviation in reference 15 should be expanded.~~ Additionally, as observed by Kew Gardens, citations need standardization and identifiers.

@StudiesWorld and AmericanAir88: I have added a lot of the information on this page

b (citations to reliable sources): ~~I'm skeptical of some of your website sources, such as erictb.info. I think that the qualify as self-published sources. Are any of the authors experts in the field? Am I misinterpreting the sources?~~ Based off of the comments from Kew Gardens, my concerns regarding self-published sources were not only concerned, but expanded. Please refer to the concerns that they brought up.
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues were found with Earwig.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Based off of Kew Gardens's comments, I believe that there are significant gaps in coverage in this article.
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): ~~The only question that I have is about File:Hey, What's a "K" train? brochure 2.gif, which does not show where it was taken from or provide PD evidence.~~ Following the discussion, below, I don't believe that any issues exist with this image.

Discussion of PD status

@StudiesWorld: This was from the joekorner website. There is no copyright symbol anywhere on the document. This document was from 1985. How is this not evidence that it is PD?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: - Do you have evidence that it is from 1985 and that its copyright was never registered? I believe it is in the public domain, but from my understanding of commons rules, we must have evidence that it is. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the year, the 1983 map shows the AA, which was later renamed the K when this brochure was put out. The 1985 map is the first to show it as the K. The copyright registration website is not working very well, but I know that it was not there when it was. They register subway maps, but not brochures like this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached out to someone else for assistance on this issue. I don't know the PD rules on Commons well enough to feel comfortable signinf off on this without further confirmation or a clarification. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate thorough reviews, and thank you for taking this up. I will try to work on the other issues you brought up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StudiesWorld and Kew Gardens 613, you might find the Commons Hirtle chart to be useful when determining if something is PD. If it is correct that this material was published in 1985 without a copyright notice, and it was not subsequently registered for copyright within five years of its first publication, it is indeed in the public domain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Seraphimblade Do we need explicit evidence of the date or will circumstantial evidence do? Assuming the date is correct, I was unable to find a registration for the brochure. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons operates based upon the precautionary principle, that the burden of proving something is free content lies on the person who uploads it or claims it to be. Since in this case the time of publication is crucial to whether it is PD, you would have to be able to be certain of when that was. I do not know what circumstantial evidence you mean. Since it does indicate a change in the way subway lines were designated by letters though, we should be able to reasonably tell when brochures about the change were published, as they would have been published immediately before or after the changes in designation took effect. It would be nonsense for them to have published material about those changes many years after they took place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Seraphimblade. Based off of what you've said, I'm comfortable with the use of the image. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Captions seem generally suitable. However, no alt text is provided for any images. I think that the BMT map should get some form of alt text to clarify that it is a map as opposed to some other related document.

Overall: ~~Please address my concerns above.~~ Based off of the concerns of Kew Gardens, I am strongly leaning towards a direct fail. However, given your previous engagement, I am open to giving you seven days. If you wish to have a further hold period, please let me know, otherwise, I'll plan to fail this in the next day or two.
Pass/Fail:

·

@StudiesWorld: Sorry, I have been on vacation in Vegas. I am coming tonight. Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StudiesWorld: All issues except the SPS's fixed. Kewgardens Any input on the erictb.info refs? AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StudiesWorld, AmericanAir88, and Epicgenius: I have added a lot of the information on this page and my goal was to eventually make this a GA. @AmericanAir88:, I didn't think it was ready, but wanted to see how you would do on this. There are many issues that remain. References need to be standardized, titles need to be fixed, page numbers added, urls shortened, ISSN, ISBNs and OCLC numbers need to be added, and better sources are needed. We cannot use erictb.info, thejoekorner and nycsubway.org (except for primary source documents or articles hosted there). I put these in initially as placeholder references, and have worked to find better ones. I removed some unneeded erictb.info citations from here, and have some sources I had planned to add concerning the Manhattan Bridge changes. I have never been fond of the bullet pointed routes in the Chrystie Street section. There is more history that needs to be fleshed out, including the changes in 2004, for which I recently got documentation, operations during the 1990s, the gap in history between 1920 and 1967, the lack of information on original service patterns, and the impact of the construction of the line on adjacent neighborhoods, development, and more information on the Dual Contracts.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have told you this earlier but was preoccupied by school, and had to cut back on my editing. I am not the reviewer, and cannot be, given my role in editing this article, but cannot just watch this article be passed, even though I want it to, given the issues I have listed. I have had to deal with similar issues, some, in fact, more daunting, to pass, such as the reassessment of the Staten Island Railway article. It is frustrating and requires a lot of work to be done. @StudiesWorld:, you should look at the reviews of the Aqueduct Racetrack (IND Rockaway Line) and 75th Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) articles done by @Mackensen:. They were very thorough, and I became a better editor from it, and learned how to thoroughly review articles from these two. Don't be discouraged, but use this as a learning experience.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up, I do not think that this article should be passed until many of the issues I brought up are resolved. While it is possible for this article to pass on this attempt, I think this is unlikely. @AmericanAir88: I don't want you to be discouraged from working on improving articles in WP:NYCPT and from nominating them to become Good Articles. Having another editor working on improving these articles has been amazing. If you need any assistance in finding sources, on fixing references, or anything else, I will try to help. Keep on doing great work. If you have any questions about what I have just said, let me know.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: - Thanks for the information! I have added the concerns that you raised to the review above. My strongest concerns are those of covering all the major aspects and the self-published sources. Do you think that there are any other concerns that I should be aware of? StudiesWorld (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any other advice other than what Kew Gardens 613 said. It might also be worth nominating this article for a copyedit at WP:GOCE/REQ, just to make sure things make sense. epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]