Talk:Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll be glad to review this one. Having never been to NYC before but being somewhat a road geek myself, this is definitely an article I find very interesting. Let me have a couple of days to fully review the article and put together some comments. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

From a full reading, this article looks really good so far. Well done. I'll try to take care of some of the more minor things, such as broken parameters in the references, archiving all of the sources to prevent link rot, and some minor copyediting. I do see a couple of things I will need you to address, which I will list in a bit. However, it looks very good and there should be very little in need of action. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The "Battery" in the tunnel's original name refers to an artillery battery located at that site during New York City's earliest days. - Uh huh, and what's the tunnel's original name? Given the article's name, the "new name" is not clear and this sentence seems ambiguous that there might have been another name. Please rephrase.

• I put the word "original" in the wrong place. It was supposed to be "refers to an artillery battery originally...". epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The system consisted of 53 fans that each had a diameter of 8 feet (2.4 m) - Was it this way during construction or is it still this way? Needs to be more clear.

• It is still this way. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I don't feel that we need a subsection for Transportation when it's only one very small paragraph; it could just as easily be handled in the same section without the subheader. I also understand the idea behind linking every bus route to its section in its respective list article, but I would ask you to consider just one link for each article. I would argue that under MOS:DUPLINK, that's all that's really necessary for comprehension of this article.

• Done.

• The bridge would consist of a six-lane tandem suspension bridge spans - I'm no expert on bridge terminology; is this the right phrasing to end with "spans"?

• Well, it would have been two spans, like the western part of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. I reworded it. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I would personally recommend combining the section on tolls with that of the description, since it is so short a section. No reason it can't be handled in describing the tunnel itself.

• The tolls are a distinct section in similar articles, such as Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, or Queens–Midtown Tunnel. The section's also two paragraphs long, so maybe it could be a subsection. I'll think about it. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's actually it. I did a fair bit of copyediting as well, and checked links and sources for reliability, but that's all I've got for you. I'll put us on hold for the time being. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Red Phoenix: Thanks for the review. I have responded to the issues above. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: Looks really good. As it stands about the tolls section, I could see it as one in Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel, but personally feel it may be a bit WP:UNDUE given the smaller amount of content in this article and Queens–Midtown Tunnel. That being said, I will ask you to consider it but I will not consider it a barrier to GA promotion, as it's not necessarily part of the criteria to evaluation. I will go ahead and promote this article to GA status. Well done! Red Phoenix ^talk 00:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply