Talk:New Paltz station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick read of the article and overall it appears to be at or about GA-standard. I'm now starting a detailed review, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. I've probably fix any "minor problem" as a I go through the article and just list those (if any) that I need some else to fix. Pyrotec (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History -
- Construction and opening -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC) - In the second paragraph it states "By November 1869, the Gardiner rail depot had opened and was seeing regular traffic", but the following sentence appears to say "...and work on the depot commenced that day" (i.e. May 18, 1870). Its not clear whether the second sentence is referring to the Gardiner depot, which would be a date contradiction, or a depot at New Paltz.[reply]
Similarly, in the third paragraph, lumber is mentioned. I assume it was to build a/the depot, but that is not made clear. Its also not clear whether "depot" referring to the Gardiner rail depot or a depot at New Paltz.
If "it" is referring to a depot a New Paltz, then the station and depot appear to be different

- 1907 Fire -

This talks about the station burning down, then makes reference to the depot and then the station. It needs to be made clear what burned down: it seems to be station, depot and freight house.

See comments below (in Comments addressed). Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closure and renovation -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC) - In the second paragraph, in 1977 "... Fetner and Gold Associates, attempted to open the building as a bar", but the railway was described as an "active rail line". The article does not state when the line closed, but it was obviously closed by 1991.[reply]

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments addressed

I believe I've addressed most of your comments about the article's structure, but the sources refer to the building as both a railroad station and railroad depot, interchangeably. I thought the terms were synonyms, and I just didn't want to start every single sentence with "The station...". There was only one building. Thank you for reviewing this, if there is still an issue with the prose please let me know.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for your reply. This might be a US-English / British-English and/or US-railroad / UK-railways terminology problem. Since this is a US topic, I'll go with it as station and depot being interchangable. However, the 1907 Fire section is a single paragraph and I don't think that the alternating use of "station" and "depot" reads too well, but I'm not going to "fail it" or hold it up for that. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting article on the use and reuse of a railroad station.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations in producing an informative and illustrated article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]