GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: 1.02 editor ( talk · contribs) 10:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I will be taking this review and that of 86 street station. Expect comments soon.
1.02 editor (
T/
C) 10:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Article is fairly short, but mostly fine. The article is suitably illustrated and does not have any copyright infringement. There are some issues that need to be fixed.
Epicgenius I have questions about the reliability of the website subwaynut.com, it is clearly stated in the website that it is a blog and quoting the website 'This is a hobby website. as per WP:SPS, "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". Furthermore, some of the images cited cant be used as a reference for the statement, as in the case of ref 37 which dosent show a change in celing height to establish that it is lower than normal. Sorry if it seems like i'm nitpicking, but it would be better if the statements could be sourced by a more reliable source, same goes for other blog refrences. 1.02 editor ( T/ C) 04:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I will be putting this on hold for now until the issues are resolved. Will do a second round afterwards. Thanks 1.02 editor ( T/ C) 09:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: 1.02 editor ( talk · contribs) 10:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I will be taking this review and that of 86 street station. Expect comments soon.
1.02 editor (
T/
C) 10:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Article is fairly short, but mostly fine. The article is suitably illustrated and does not have any copyright infringement. There are some issues that need to be fixed.
Epicgenius I have questions about the reliability of the website subwaynut.com, it is clearly stated in the website that it is a blog and quoting the website 'This is a hobby website. as per WP:SPS, "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". Furthermore, some of the images cited cant be used as a reference for the statement, as in the case of ref 37 which dosent show a change in celing height to establish that it is lower than normal. Sorry if it seems like i'm nitpicking, but it would be better if the statements could be sourced by a more reliable source, same goes for other blog refrences. 1.02 editor ( T/ C) 04:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I will be putting this on hold for now until the issues are resolved. Will do a second round afterwards. Thanks 1.02 editor ( T/ C) 09:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)