Jump to content

Talk:North Shore Branch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNorth Shore Branch has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 16, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that passenger service on the Staten Island Railway's North Shore Branch was discontinued 16 years after it was rebuilt?
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on North Shore Branch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:North Shore Branch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    The following references have issues:
    Ref #4/zetlin is dead.
    Ref #15/nyc.gov is dead. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    @Epicgenius: There is, unfortunately, a rather large area of commonality between this article and http://jcrhs.org/B&O.html. The JCRHS article was written 2001/2004 and last updated in 2011, the content was added to this Wikipedia article in 2015. The WP article will have to be extensively re-written. This Review is on hold until the #2D issue of "putting it into your own words" is resolved. If you'd like to see the areas of concern just run the copyvio detector tool in the GA toolbox. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have to fix that. I don't know which edits exactly the offending text was added in. I'm pinging the two main contributors, Kew Gardens 613 and Tdorante10, to see if they can help. epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that I have dealt with that problem. There was one main paragraph that was the problem and I rewrote it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Hurrah for no edit-wars! Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    File:Citizens Mass Meeting in Protest Against Discontinuance of Passenger Service on North Shore and South Beach Rapid Transit Lines March 17, 1953.jpg needs an explanatory caption. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a caption.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am going to do a few more proofing readthroughs to see if I missed any problems/issues. I must say this article is overall looking pretty darn good at this point but please take a look at "References" section below. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now a WP:GA. Future improvements might include keeping the article up-to-date with news about the North Shore Branch's possible redevelopment and perhaps taking another look at the citations (bundling etc.). Congrats, Shearonink (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: On my last readthrough I did notice something - there are a number of times where there are multiple references in one long string (for example, in Route description, in History/Opening and 1900s). These references are basically interrupting the flow of the text, I think that WP:CITEBUNDLE is coming into play here.
There are two ways to deal with this:

  1. Some of the refs could be deleted from sourcing the same facts or
  2. The references could be bundled together (maybe the editor/nominator wants to retain the references for historical purposes, etc), then there would be one reference number for the multiple sources within the text with the sources all listed-out within the Footnotes. For an example of how to achieve this take a look at this article. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shearonink: Thank you for the feedback. I'll have to bundle these references later, then. epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shearonink: I have combined all refs so that there are no more than 3 references in each string. epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Visually much better - perhaps not the way I would have done it but that's ok. Going forward & thinking of possible future improvements I think that there is a bit of citation overload going on here, cite-bundling would be a good way to 1)Retain all the sources for historical purposes and 2)Increase readability in the main text - but how you've chosen to do it is your personal style and that's fine. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route diagram

[edit]

The article would be enhanced by the addition of a route diagram. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the line to create one. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North Shore Branch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Shore_Branch&oldid=1222612788"