Talk:Forest Hills–71st Avenue station

Typo

What on earth is a "Station Repoerter?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.73.229 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 November 2006

A typo, is what. Fixed. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Section

East of the station the tunnel widens to 6 tracks, with 2 tracks starting between the local and express tracks in each direction. The 2 tracks ramps down to a lower level, where it widens to 4 tracks, and run on a lower level through the 75th Avenue station. These tracks are access to the Jamaica Yard and train storage.

This section already exists at the beginning of the second paragraph almost word-for-word. Please stop adding it to the end of the article. Acps110 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Mr etre, 10 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Mr etre (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 207.237.8.187, 10 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

207.237.8.187 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I think we should replace the picture as it still shows the V train in it.--iGeMiNix 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1968 - Queens Super Express

According to online research, noting citeable yet though. This station was going to be the Queens end of the 1960's Super-Express line that would have run from the 63rd Street Line. If anyone sees this and has sound information on what was going to happen here can you contact me, I'm considering writing an article on the proposal.Graham1973 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Forest Hills–71st Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line). 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/20150113015344/http://www.stationreporter.net/etrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/etrain.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113015227/http://www.stationreporter.net/ftrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/ftrain.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608075315/http://www.stationreporter.net/rtrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/rtrain.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922060746/http://www.stationreporter.net/mxtrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/mxtrain.htm

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) 23:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:163rd Street–Amsterdam Avenue (IND Eighth Avenue Line) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forest Hills–71st Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line). 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/20140209040131/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131231/forest-hills/forest-hills-subway-station-project-delayed-by-three-months to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131231/forest-hills/forest-hills-subway-station-project-delayed-by-three-months
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327022909/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140325/forest-hills/forest-hills-subway-station-renovation-be-completed-march-mta-says to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140325/forest-hills/forest-hills-subway-station-renovation-be-completed-march-mta-says

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) 05:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forest Hills–71st Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose seems reasonably clear and concise, with correct spelling and grammar.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Article complies with the manual of style guidelines.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References check out. Most are either to reputable news sources or government agencies.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	A couple of issues here. The part about George Harvey predicting that the subway would turn Queens Boulevard into the "Park Avenue of Queens" needs a citation. Also the information on the line opening has six citations, could that be trimmed down to fewer citations?  Done	Pass
(c) (original research)	Judging by the citations and prose there seems to be no original research.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Ran the page through the Copyvio Detector and there seems to be no red flags.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article seems to cover the important details for a New York City Subway station. One comment is that it seems like there needs to be more discussion about where the stations exits are actually located.  Done	Pass
(b) (focused)	The history section could use a bit more focusing. It feels like there's just a little too much focus on the early development around the station area and not on the history of the station itself. That's good information to include, it just needs to be a bit more focused.  Done	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article is neutral with no bias.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article is stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are tagged and there are no fair use images.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images are appropriately used and have suitable captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Overall a nice, detailed page on what appears to be a pretty important station in Queens of the New York City subway. This will be a good article with a little more focus in the history section, some additional information in the station exits section and some changes to the citations. Cheers! --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Thank you for taking this article up for review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer response: With those changes made, the article passes. Congratulations to all editors involved.

--RickyCourtney (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)