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

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm MrWooHoo. I'd like to quickly explain how I'll be reviewing this article. I will do a general review (checking the criteria), then doing an in-depth prose and source review. I'll begin this review ASAP. Thanks! MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being willing to take on the review. I will gladly work with you to fix any problems and to improve the article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I've spotted something of immediate concern. Earwig's copyvio detector has detected basically a huge portion of text taken straight from another website. Is this true? Also, I have finished both the prose and source reviews. MrWooHoo (T • C) 00:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. I did not write this major section of text, and it does look like it. I won't have time tonight to deal with that, but I will start rewriting the text. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General Review

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.	See prose review below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See prose review below.
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 don't see anything uncited.
	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).	See source review below.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Broad coverage shows main aspects of topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Doesn't seem to go out of topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No obvious bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No instability.
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.	Comments are addressed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions are good and suitable.
	7. Overall assessment.	All comments addressed

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or  Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

• Lede should definitely be at least two paragraphs, maybe three.

 Done

• "to construct new subway lines in addition and take over existing subway lines and railroad right-of-ways. "

Change "and take over" to "to taking over".

 Done

• "These lines are the IRT Lexington Avenue Line, IRT Pelham Line and IRT Jerome Avenue Line. The Manhattan Bridge line described below later became the BMT Fourth Avenue Line, the BMT West End Line, the BMT Sea Beach Line, and the Nassau Street loops"

Use the oxford comma throughout the article or don't. Stick to one.

 Done

• "None of these lines were actually completed, except for the 95th Street extension on the Fourth Avenue Line.[7][9][10] However, some of Hylan's planned lines were built to completion. Completed lines included:[7]"

I'm confused. Were the lines built to completion or not actually completed?

 Done

• "It would include a new 34th Street crosstown line; a Second Avenue Subway line; a connection to the New York, Westchester and Boston Railway; and extensions of the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line, IRT Flushing Line, and BMT Astoria Line."

I think commas would be the correct usage here instead of semicolons.

 Done

• "On July 17, 1962, the NYCTA announced that it had asked the city for money to build a $190,000,000 high-speed, non-stop subway line from Midtown to the Bronx The line would have only operated during rush hours."

Add a period after Bronx.

 Done

• "In 1963, three major commuter groups in New Jersey made expansion proposals. One of them would have involved an extension of the IRT Flushing Line under the Hudson River with a three-track tunnel and then connect with the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad"

Why is there repetition/restating of information from the New Jersey expansion section to the 1940-1999 section? You should probably use one or the other.

 Done

• "3 Train Extension to the Bronx (Ogden Avenue & University Avenue) In January 2014, Richard Garey (Architect) and Ed Garcia Conde (Journalist) announced a new plan for extending a the 3 train from its current terminus at Lenox Terminal into the Bronx. Re-construction of the Third Avenue El (Bronx)See Nelson Rockefeller's "Metropolitan Transportation - A Plan for Action" page 35."

References should be at the end, and these sections should be expanded.

 Done Someone added this without my knowing. These are not real proposals, and these do not belong in a wikipedia article. I don't know how I didn't see that earlier.

• "In 1996 the Regional Plan Association conducted a study "

Make sure to use conformity with commas after subordinate clauses. In some places it is used, in others it isn't.

 Done

Source Review

Please fix references 70, 73, 74, 78, and 90.They are all dead according to Checklinks. MrWooHoo (T • C) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Comments

@MrWooHoo: Thank you for the review. While I am not the nominator, I noticed that for #6a, File:1929 IND Second System.jpg and File:1939 IND Second System.jpg are both in public domain because No copyright notice, which was required in the U.S. until 1989, so it's public domain. So, if you were to publish an image today, it would automatically be your copyright, but since this was before the copyright law was passed, it would be public domain, according to our article on the copyright notice: Works published before January 1, 1978, are governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. Under that law, if a work was published under the copyright owner’s authority without a proper notice of copyright, all copyright protection for that work was permanently lost in the United States. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrWooHoo: Have there been any updates to the review yet? epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I'm so sorry. I've been super behind on this. I'll work on it this weekend. Thanks for the reminder. MrWooHoo (T • C) 04:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem, really. I was just worried that the review might be closed early. epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrWooHoo: I have worked to fix the problems that you have mentioned. I have reduced some of the copyright violations. A lot of what the copyright violation detector says are violations are the uses of the full names of lines, such as IRT White Plains Road Line. Could you please respond? Thank you.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: That's totally fine. I will pass this now. Thanks for being such a good nominator! MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrWooHoo: Thank you for taking up this review even though you have a lot to do. I really appreciate it. Have a good day.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]