Talk:Conduit Avenue

Merge

This one seems like a bad merge; Conduit Boulevard is a major road in NYC and is not all NY 27. --NE2 08:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct.Dogru144 (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The merge proposal - the discussion of which should have been on NY 27's talk page, since that's where the link in the merge box went - has already been closed as no merge... – TMF 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not where the link in the merge box went. --NE2 18:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Heh, point taken. That's a bad job by whoever tagged it then, but it's all water under the bridge. – TMF 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Conduit under the boulevard? --NE2 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't this article be named Conduit Avenue because most of the length of the road is in Queens? - SkipperRipper (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conduit Avenue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721060227/http://prtl-drprd-web.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/transportation/td_conduit.shtml to http://prtl-drprd-web.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/transportation/td_conduit.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conduit Avenue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Will begin review soon.--Dom497 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• What is the significance of having "Conduit Highway" bolded in the lead?
• "...as part of the construction of Belt Parkway." --> "as part of the construction of the Belt Parkway."
• In the first section in the "Etymology" section, link to the Brooklyn Waterworks article.
• The entire "Etymology" doesn't flow well. The name of the conduit should be mentioned first, instead of "...for the conduit of the Brooklyn Water Works". Also, "the roads were constructed on the former right-of-way of the aqueduct" should be its own sentence.
• "Brooklyn and Ozone Park and Lindenwood in Queens" - One to many "ands".
• "The aqueduct was located on the north side of what is now Conduit Avenue, and was built on a right-of-way yet to be developed" - Yet to be developed at the time or currently?
• What is the significance of having "Conduit Highway" and "Pipe Line Boulevard" bolded in the "History" section.
• "The project was completed around 1942..." - None of the references provided support this statement. The article that mentions the project would be completed in 1942 was published in 1941 so it was just an estimate at the time.
• Please add the Subscription Required tag to references that need subscriptions.
• Ref 6 needs to be formatted correctly and include an access date. Also, "nycroads" doesn't appear to be reliable at first glance. Have there been any discussions about this source in the past?
• This is me just being picky but some of the references include links to the "The New York Times" wiki article while others don't. For consistency, either link to it all the time in the references or don't link at all.

Good work!--Dom497 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dom497: Thanks for the review. I removed ref number 6 and made all the fixes you suggested above (though NY Times only requires subscription to five of the ten sources that are listed, and bklyn.newspapers.com is free). "Conduit Highway" and "Pipe Line Boulevard" redirect to this article, and so are bolded. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Looks good! Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)