Talk:Lexington Avenue–63rd Street station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 12:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and return to the lead at the end. Please indicate when issues have been addressed by adding comments and possibly the {{Done}} template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

History

Construction

• This needs an introduction, in view of the following discussion about IND and BMT sides. It should mention that prior to the merger in 1940, parts of the NY system were constructed by Independent Subway System (IND) and the Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT) companies. There is a ref for this on the IND article. The abbreviations should be spelled out on first introduction, but the abbreviations can be used subsequently.

 Done

• I still think that listing the component companies would work better as an introduction, rather than an explanation after IND in particular has already been mentioned. So: These were the companies - these were the proposals - this was the final plan - seems to have a flow to it, where at the moment it introduces the proposals from the 1960s and then jumps back to the 1940s and forwards to 1969. What do you think? Bob1960evens (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done

• 63rd Street Line needs a wikilink here as well as in the lead.

 Done

• Similarly, MTA needs to be "Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)" on first occurrence.

 Done

• Construction on the 63rd Street Line... This needs some more geographical info, to aid understanding. Piecing together the info from here and the next section, presumably there was one IND track and one BMT track on each level. Which was which? Can that be shown on the layout diagram? I initially assumed that there were a further two tracks on the upper level, running parallel to the two shown on the track layout, because the mention of a "one-track, one-side platform station" comes in the next section.

• I mentioned which side is the northern and which side is the southern. I add a compass to the track map so that the direction is known. Originally, as the article states, there were four tracks, two on each level, one IND and one BMT per level. The IND is on the south side, while the BMT is on the north side. Until 2017, only the southern tracks, the IND tracks were in service, and before December 2016, the northern tracks were blocked off, giving the appearance of a one-track, one-side platform station.  Done

• This is better. However, we are left with the three tunnels. Were these the two running tunnels for the IND 63rd Street Line, and one of the tunnels for the Second Avenue Line - BMT Broadway Line? While the details of the station are good, it is the wider context that needs a bit more clarity, in view of the complex nature of the construction, involving, as far as I can see, three lines. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't find this statement in any reference in the article, and not even in the article when the statement was put in. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lexington_Avenue–63rd_Street_(63rd_Street_Lines)&diff=prev&oldid=610355719 Since this cannot be referenced in any way, true or not, it does not belong in a Good Article Candidate. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• There was mention about three bits of tunnel that they were trying to rent out in one of the refs, but I cannot remember which one. (Actually it was ref 14 "The Line That Time Forgot") Someone suggested using them to grow mushrooms, but I think I agree that it should just be removed. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Original station opens

• when the upper levels of the multi-level 63rd Street Tunnel were completed for subway use. Looking at the 63rd Street Tunnel article, I think this needs to be something like "due to delays in the construction of the the multi-level 63rd Street Tunnel, caused by the financial crisis of the 1970s." or somesuch, to make it more obvious why there was a 6-year gap.

 Done

Expansion for the Second Avenue Subway

• ..."Lex 63" on every couple columns of tiles. Does not read well. Suggest "..."Lex 63" at regular intervals."

 Done

• The track layout shows 57th Street-7th Avenue station as being part of the BMT Broadway Line. Is this part of the Second Avenue line? Should it be mentioned?

57th Street is part of the Broadway Line. The BMT 63rd Street Line breaks off north of the station and it includes this station. The BMT 63rd Street then becomes the IND Second Avenue Line.

Service history

• The tunnel had gained notoriety as the "tunnel to nowhere"... What was the reason for this? Were the stations beyond the tunnel not used? I think it also needs to be 63rd Street Tunnel, since all of the section under discussion is in tunnel.

 Done

• • All of the stations on the line opened on October 29, 1989. The connection to Queens Blvd opened in December 2001.

• concurrent with the closure of the IND Sixth Avenue Line tracks and the 63rd Street Connector officially opened. Both of these need a bit of context, since the dates don't correspond to anything previously described. Why were the tracks closed? What does the 63rd Street Connector connect?

 Done

Station layout

• Elevator and escalator are wikilinked further down, but should be wikilinked on the first occurence and not subsequently.

 Done

• A third staircase between the platform levels has been construction. Presumably, "constructed."

 Done

• contained a sole stairway Suggest "contained a single stairway", as sole needs a definite article.

 Done

• replacing the originally planned escalators due to being more space-efficient. Suggest "replacing the originally planned escalators, as they use the space more effectively."

 Done

• I notice that there is no mention of ridership. Is this an oversight?

 Done

That is the text reviewed. I will move on to the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up and I won't be able to do anything tomorrow because it is Shabbat.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added a couple of riders to the Construction section above, and altered the track layout diagram, adding two more labels. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• I have been able to check most of the references, as only a few of them are offline sources. Unusually, there seem to be some cases where the article is over-referenced, as for example when 4 refs (43-46) are used to support a single sentence, and again when 6 refs (11,59-63) do the same.

 Done Some references removed as they aren't the best ones.

The refs generally support the text as written. There are a few issues.

• Ref 1(b) The 'Subway to Nowhere' Now Goes Somewhere. Cannot find any evidence for the 1983 date.

 Done

• Ref 14 The Line That Time Forgot, Ref 15 FAQ: Completed Portions and Ref 16(a) Abandoned Stations are all used to support completion of the IND side of the station, but only Ref 16 mentions it. 16f and 16g are used to support staircases, but I can find no reference to these. Some of the later refs mention them, however. For example, Ref 26 February 2012 Newsletter.

 Done – References that don't support the statements have been removed.

• Ref 17 F’ing mirror image is just a series of pictures, with no mention that they are of Lexington Av. This should be removed, as Ref 18 Abandoned 63rd street platform & Mezzanine, Circa 2004 is used for the same text, and includes location descriptions.

Okay, but it clearly is at Lexington.  Done

• Ref 22 R40M RFW F Train Between 36th Street to 57th St/6th Av I am not convinced that this shows that the bellmouths are "clearly visible". Ref 15 FAQ: Completed Portions states that fact in text.

 Done I can see it, and have seen it while passing on the train, but fine.

• Ref 25 Second Avenue subway groundbreaking is broken, retuning an "invalid story key" message.

 Done I substituted another reference

• Ref 31 Second Avenue Subway has a breakthrough moment. This mentions that the TBM came from 92nd Street, and would be a useful addition to the article, to aid understanding of which bit was being constructed.

 Done

• Ref 33 Subway Disruptions Continue returns a 404 Not found error.

 Done

• Refs 34 First look at a Second Avenue Subway station to 38 Proposed Master Plan Second Avenue Subway are all used to support temporary blue walls. I am not sure I have found blue in there, but it seems a bit OTT.

 Done I took out the ones that don't mention the temporary blue walls.

• Refs 43 New Photos Show Second Avenue Subway to 46 Community Board 8 Second Avenue Subway are all used to support 91% complete. Ref 44 returns a 404 Not found error. Only 46 actually mentions 91%, The other two mention various different percentages.

 Done These other ones have been removed.

• Ref 52 and 53 Art Underground: point to the same article and should be combined.

 Done

• Ref 57 Manhattan Bridge Service Changes once went to a page with a large table of information, but now seems to go a page of the Lenox Line Service Guide.

 Done

• Ref 70 October 2016 Newsletter. I cannot find any details of the city skyline.

 Done I just removed it. The artwork is already mentioned anyway.

• Ref 71 MTA Neighborhood Maps: Upper East Side is used twice in the same sentence. The first occurrence should be removed.

 Done

Images

• The image caption "Elevated" needs expanding.

 Done

Lead

• The lead is a little short for an article of this length. I think some info about where the lines go, rather than just mentioning F, Q and N trains would be good. There is no mention of timescales which have clearly been extemely drawn out. Perhaps something on Artwork, and it being one of the deepest stations would round it off.

 Done

• Not only done, but very well done. It now serves its purpose well. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See comment above

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I have now finished the review. You confused me a little by deleting refs while I was checking them, so all the numbers changed, but hey ho, that is the joys of working on a concurrent system. Since you seem to be pressing on with the fixes, I will not put the article on hold unless there is no further movement. Happy editing, and do let me know if anything is not clear. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• As all of the issues raised in the review have now been addressed, I am pleased to award the article GA status. I have learnt a great deal about a station with a rather complex history. Thank you for your quick responses to the review. Having worked with you on four reviews in the last few days, I notice that your next nominations are quite a way down the GA queue, so I don't know if they will still be there if I continue working down the list. Shalom. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Thanks again for your work. Hopefully we will able to do more of these at some point.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)