Talk:IRT New Lots Line

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IRT New Lots 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/20140328023018/http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub.htm to http://mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub.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) 01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IRT New Lots Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 02:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: aaaa I forgot to ping you! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Vami IV, no problem. epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Finished my comments. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Livonia Avenue Line[2]:129 This name only occurs once more in the article, with In August 1919, work on the Livonia Avenue Line was suspended [...].
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Utica Avenue in Crown Heights and continues to New Lots Avenue in East New York. "Utica Avenue" and "New Lots Avenue" should be followed by "station" to distinguish them from the neighborhoods they're located in.
  •  Done by @Epicgenius:--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• except for a short section above East 98th Street What neighborhood is E. 98th in?
  •  Done by @Epicgenius:--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I am ready for more comments whenever you are. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Citations [3], [4], [5] do not need to be in the lead.
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

History

• This line was constructed as Route 31 Livonia Avenue Route. Too many "Route"s?
  • Clarified.  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• its locations was not yet decided upon. Were?
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• [...] the three bids were rejected June 22. On June 8, [...] I'm confused. Firstly, on June 22. Secondly, June 8, and not 28th?
• A new contract for the construction of the line was awarded by the PSC on January 17, 1917. To whom?
  • I clarified this.  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Why is May 1921 after May 1922 in "Opening"?
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• [...] with a two-car train operating on back and forth along [...] Should this "on" be here?
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Expansion plans" feels incomplete. What was the result of the 1951 study? Why all the "would"s in the third paragraph?
  • @Vami IV: That article is all there is on the web about the study. I haven't found anything else. I dealt with the "would"s.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Did the US Dept. of Transportation approve the NYCTA's grant request? A "yes" is implied by the opening of bidding by contractors, but not outright said.
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Paragraphs 3 and 4 of "Station renovations" both begin with As part of [the MTA's [year] funding program, funding was provided...].
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Extent and service

• Consider "Route and service" for the title.
  •  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Can you discuss the line's stock and equipment here?
  • @Vami IV and Epicgenius: Rolling stock is assigned by service, not by line, so I do not think it would make sense to include it here.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

    This is correct. Lines are just the physical tracks and infrastructure, and services are the travel patterns that use rolling stock. See New York City Subway nomenclature for the explanation. epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Understood, marked off. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

GA progress

Article passes CopyVio scanner. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Images are free/tagged and relevant to the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References are reliable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:12, 27 May 2020 (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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that steel contracts for New York City's New Lots Line were rejected, in part because the chief engineer hoped steel costs would go down?
  • ALT0a: ... that during the construction of New York City's New Lots Line, three bids for steel were rejected, in part because the chief engineer was banking on steel costs falling? Source: Times-Union 1916
  • ALT1:... that a shuttle train was used for two years to facilitate the completion of New York City's New Lots Line? Source: "IRT Brooklyn Line Opened 90 Years Ago". New York Division Bulletin. New York Division, Electric Railroaders' Association. 53 (9).
  • ALT2:... that construction of a third track on New York City's New Lots Line was denied because it was not specified in the legal routing of the line? Source: Public Service Commission

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pine Street
• Comment: More hooks pending

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 19:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC).

• Nominated within 7 days of receiving GA status. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. I think ALT0 is going to be interesting to a broad audience, but the source (footnote 15) does not verify any of the facts in this sentence in the article: Three bids were submitted, but the Chief Engineer recommended that they all be rejected, because he hoped that the price of steel would stop rising rapidly and instead start decreasing. Instead, it just says that the city stopped the bidding process because it found it could provide the steel more cheaply. Perhaps you found these details in a different source? Images in article are freely licensed. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Thanks for pointing that out. This source, p. 110, does support the allegation made in ALT0, that the Chief Engineer was betting on the price of steel to decrease. But the Times-Union page says that the city found a way to acquire steel at a lower price. I have rephrased the article and hook accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Thank you. I'm wondering if you could pep up the language in ALT0 (you could say "betting" or "banking" on steel prices falling), and also mention that three bids were rejected? I just think it needs more pizazz. Yoninah (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Thanks. I have modified ALT0 accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you. I'm going to suggest a tweak of ALT0a --
• ALT0b: ... that during contract bidding for structural steel for New York City's New Lots Line, all three bids were rejected partly because the chief engineer was banking on steel prices falling?

-- and since I've had too much input in the hook wording, I'd appreciate another editor signing off on this. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Approving Alt0b. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)