Talk:Accessibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Gerald Waldo Luis (talk · contribs) 14:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I will review this article. This is a long wing, and may take some time to complete this review. I have taken some notes from the previous failed nomination to guide along this review, making sure all valid concerns in the previous review has been addressed. GeraldWL 14:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Kew Gardens 613, first check:

• Mind adding alt texts?
  •  Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Please add citations at the "Station count".
  •  Doing... Due to the nature of this article, the number of stations was computed by conducting a physical count per WP:CALC, but I will fix this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done I've added references to the number of stations in each system. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Concerning MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID, I think it'd be better if you symbolize stations that meet full ADA requirements with a symbol rather than bolds. Section in question: "Long Island Rail Road" and "Metro-North Railroad".
  •  Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• In "Buses", As of May 2019, all fleet of non-express buses consists of semi-low floors with wheelchair ramps, while all express buses have high floors and contained lifts. Many retired fleet are high-level buses, and many of the fleet built before 1990 do not comply with ADA standards is not cited.
  •  Fixed
• "Future accessible stations" bulleted list is uncited.
  • The bulleted list is a legend (chart), while the paragraph below it is a summary of the table, which is cited. Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Most of the footnotes are uncited. GeraldWL 10:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Doing... Notes [a], [b], and [f] are currently cited. Note [g] is not too hard to cite, since a notation can be added in the "Notes" section. Note [c] is harder, since it's difficult to find a source for an absence of something - however, in all of these articles, there are sources for the elevators, and similar to [g], a notation can be added in the "Notes" section. Note [e] is a legend notation, but it's the same issue as note [c]. Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done Epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Epicgenius, sorry for the delay! I'll be looking on the article thoroughly now. GeraldWL 13:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for the comments. Though I'm not the nominator, I've addressed some of these issues. It is slightly harder to address some of the others, because they are intended as legend notations rather than actual prose. Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Add shortdesc. GeraldWL 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Long Island Rail Road's abbreviation is kept in square brackets. Suggest changing to regular brackets, unless MOS somehow disallows it. GeraldWL 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Suggest linking ableism in "discrimination on the basis of disability". GeraldWL 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done

Background

• I relocated the images to not make it CLUTTER-empty-CLUTTER, if you know what I mean. Feel free to review that. GeraldWL 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• I added some links. Feel free to review this too. GeraldWL 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• "...including Fordham Road, Forest Hills—71st Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, Times Square and 125th Street." Links? GeraldWL 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done

Commuter rail

• Link Elevated railway within "above ground"? GeraldWL 12:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done

Buses

• "However, private operators retained non-accessible buses. The last non-accessible bus on any New York City public transit, Motor Coach Industries' Classic (SC40-102A), ran on these private routes (which later became part of MTA Bus Company) until it was retired in 2007." Uncited. GeraldWL 12:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Removed

Future accessible stations

• "Since December 2020, there are 2 commuter rail and 4 subway stations where ADA renovations are underway; 1 station under construction; and 7 proposed stations across the MTA's commuter rail and rapid transit systems. Four of the stations listed below are already partially accessible. In addition, there are 39 subway stations where final contracts, design or planning is underway (32 if station complexes are counted as one station), as well as 2 commuter rail stations where design is underway. Another 46 subway stations (45 if complexes are counted as one) and 8 commuter rail stations are in pre-planning." Uncited. GeraldWL 12:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is merely a summary of the below table. This has the same problem as the bulleted list: that list was a legend, while the paragraph below it is a summary of the table, which is cited. If necessary, I can condense all 20 or so references and append them to the end of this paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I've added an invisible comment to prevent future misconceptions. GeraldWL 14:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Epicgenius, overall it's ready for GA. I'll just wait for the two Doing issues to be done. GeraldWL 07:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

        Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks. I'm still working on these issues, but will resolve them soon. Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

        Epicgenius, it's been some time. Is this problem resolved? GeraldWL 07:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

        Gerald Waldo Luis, sorry about this, I forgot about it. I am almost done with fixing the issue. I'll ping Kew Gardens 613 as well. Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

        Gerald Waldo Luis, I have fixed the remaining issues. Sorry for the delay. Epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

        Epicgenius, ...and sorry for my delay! Promoting this. GeraldWL 07:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.