Talk:96th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: Would one or both of you be able to work on this soon? I don't want to keep the review open for too long. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. Sure, I can work on it in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: Do you think you'll be able to finish the remaining items (mostly referencing issues) by the 31st? If not, I'll end the review for now, but I'd be happy to do a quick GA2 review later on. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look in a bit, but I haven't had much luck finding sources for the remaining points. For example, I haven't been able to find out info about the tiles installed in the 1950s renovation. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede[edit]

  • Use 'and' instead of ampersand for the address. Wikilink 96th Street and Broadway. The state should not be abbreviated. (ZIP code is also unneeded, but that's been discussed before so I won't insist here.)
    • All of these are done except for the ZIP Code. Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's room for a longer caption - perhaps The uptown island platform in October 2010
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • exclamation mark  Captions read more naturally as The uptown... than Uptown..., and "as seen" doesn't really add anything useful.
  • Per MOS:BOLD, operators should not be bolded.
  • The cross-platform transfer is discussed in the prose, so I don't think it's worth having an extra line in the infobox
  • Per WP:USSTATION#Lead, "station" should be part of the bolded station title.
    • I will do this soon; as this applies to multiple stations, it would be easier to do this all at once. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend having station configuration information before historical information, both for the lede and the main prose.
  • No need for a hatnote per WP:NAMB

History[edit]

  • Place the images properly in the text - right now they're awkwardly stacked on the right side and don't stay with the relevant prose.
  • I would change in which it would construct to under which it would construct
  • You can remove the "Service changes and station renovations" header, and change the level 4 headers to level 3.
  • I would clarify the significance of the 1908 opening - the previous paragraph says the subway opened in 1904, so this 1908 opening sounds like an extension.
  • I don't see a need to list the terminals of the post-1908 services; that's relevant to the services, not this station
    • The reason this was originally done (for this and for similar articles on the same line) is because, if I recall correctly, one of the other GANs brought up this very issue, i.e. when the 1/2/3 started operating. (This, too, will have to be mass-updated since the same text is used in 20+ articles.) Epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. I don't see it as necessary, but not an impediment to GA.
  • Consider switching the order of the first 2 paragraphs under "Early 20th century"
  • The details about the R series can be simplified; the change being due to rollsigns is again relevant to the service, not the station.
    • I will remove the R-series details as part of a larger change soon. This affects multiple articles and is a relevant improvement to these articles as well. Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about the 1964 changes is confusing. When did express service drop from 10 to 9 cars, and why were changes needed to go back to 10? When was the work completed? Were any changes made to 96th Street?
    • Basically, the 1958 changes only covered a portion of the line. Stations from Times Square to 96th Street could fit 10-car trains, but other stations (namely between Penn Station and Rector Street) could not. So in 1964, the stations from Penn Station to Rector Street also had their platforms lengthened. However, the third paragraph of this section, which discusses the completion of the 1958 changes, specifically says eight-car local trains began operation, even though the 96th Street station could fit more than eight cars. The problem was that other stations were too short for ten-car trains. Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single-sentence paragraph can probably be combined with the previous one.
  • Remove "state of the art" - that's basically weasel wording
  • exclamation mark  There's no mention of the beige tiles in the paragraph about the 1950s renovation, but the renovation section refers to it
  • This has now been removed (I still can't find evidence that beige tiles were installed in the renovation, so it had to be removed, though I'm 99% sure this is actually true). Epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ADA-accessible" is one of those phrases that gets used in govt and press works without any consideration of the actual meaning. Just "accessible" (wikilinked) is fine.
  • Which of the 94th Street entrances does the image show? It also seems chronologically out of order.
    • It shows the southbound entrance. I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend changing the next caption to Former fare control area on the now-closed Uptown side platform in 1978
  • Add date to the next caption (any photos in a history section should have the date)
  • Need details or rewording for "dangerous" - is that a public perception, an engineer's opinion, or the conclusion from a safety investigation?
    • This was based on the number of pedestrian/vehicle accidents there, which I too have reworded. Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Station layout[edit]

  • Remove wikilinks that appear more than once in the layout
    • I think this is done now, but I may have missed some. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "no service" lines are confusing - I have no idea what they're supposed to mean.
  • exclamation mark  I would move the old platform lengths to the history section - this section should primarily reflect the current configuration.
  • Much of the second paragraph is uncited
  • few reasons. First of all --> several reasons. First
  • The converted units for small measurements in the design section switch between mm and cm. I'd force all of them to cm (not the ones in m, obviously)
  • Several uncited sentences in the design section
  • There's still one citation needed tag that needs addressed
    • I will fix these soon. Incidentally, these uncited sentences are why I was hesitant to nominate this article for GA just yet. Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pi.1415926535: Sorry for the delay. I am still working on fixing the referencing issues, as this is the main issue that I have not addressed yet. Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd retitle the subsection to "Entrances and exits", given that passengers are probably more concerned about the former.
  • Headhouse construction dates are in the history, and don't need to be here
  • "ADA-accessible" again
  • Can you find a RS for the closed exits? Not the biggest deal to just have the GMSV links, but the MTA neighborhood map doesn't support the claim. (BTW, I only see one staircase per corner in the GMSV image, but the text implies two per corner.)
  • No citation for the control house removal.
    • I'm having trouble finding when it was removed, but the control house's existence is cited in "Stern, Robert A. M.; Gilmartin, Gregory; Massengale, John Montague (1983). New York 1900: Metropolitan Architecture and Urbanism, 1890–1915." It doesn't exist anymore, hence why it was originally put there without citation. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need three small images of station decoration - one normal-size thumbnail should suffice.
    • I moved these to a multiple-image template. Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

  • exclamation mark  I don't think we need a separate section for this one item - it can probably be tucked under history.
    • It may not flow well under history because this is related to a fictional event. However, I agree this section may be too short to be on its own. @Kew Gardens 613, what do you think? – Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

All citation numbers here are accurate to this revision.

  • The single note doesn't need a separate section - it can just go at the bottom of the reflist, without a header.
  • Ref 53 needs some more parameters; 51 could use them as well
  • nyc.gov (ref 38) and mta.info (ref 50) don't need to be listed as website names - you can just list the agency publisher
  • Is ref 28 an offline source, or is there a missing url?
  • A few refs like 48 and 51 are weirdly missing punctuation.

External links[edit]

Status query[edit]

Pi.1415926535, Epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613, where does this nomination stand? As far as I can tell, the only edit Kew Gardens 613 has made in the course of this nomination is to remove a blank line from the article, leaving all the work to Epicgenius. (They've been pinged four times before, yet never responded here once, which is contrary to the expectations of nominators.) If you're satisfied that all the work will ultimately get done and you're willing to wait that long, Pi.1415926535, then you can certainly keep this review open. If there are intractable issues—sourcing that Epicgenius cannot find, for example—then it's absolutely within your remit to close this as unsuccessful. Another GAN was closed today due to Kew Gardens 613's lack of response; this has been an issue for past nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius has done a great job so far; there's only a handful of items remaining. I'm okay keeping the review open a few more days, since the article is so close. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset, Pi.1415926535, thanks for checking up on the nom. Sorry for keeping this on the backburner for so long, since I've been focused on other things. I can definitely take a look tomorrow, given how few issues there are left. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Just FYI, I've noted the four remaining items with exclamation mark  since it's a long list (of minor items - overall quality was high even beforehand). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks. I have now addressed all four of these issues. There are still some things that are missing (for example, an actual ref for the beige tiles in the 1958 renovations, which I removed rather than added a source for, or when the control house was removed), but they are relatively minor, so I can attempt to address these again. Epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, glad to finally pass this! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:96th_Street_station_(IRT_Broadway–Seventh_Avenue_Line)/GA1&oldid=1071263845"