Wikipedia

Talk:Unbuilt plans for the Second Avenue Subway

Latest comment: 11 months ago by Epicgenius in topic Splitting of construction sections
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the Second Avenue Subway. 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:

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) 08:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on History of the Second Avenue Subway. 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:

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) 09:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Second Avenue Subway. 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:

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) 16:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the Second Avenue Subway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skyes(BYU) (talk · contribs) 16:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article appears to be high quality after a quick read-through. I begin to look through sources more carefully later today. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

1919–1941: Initial planning

edit

These are all just observations I have made looking at the article and sources with a fine-toothed comb. I don't claim to be 100% correct, in fact, I'd love if you could prove me wrong. I couldn't access article from TimesMachine so I had to take your word for it on those. I don't have an extensive knowledge of the subject matter, which I think will make me a more neutral reviewer, though it might take me some time to complete this review.

  • Reference pages for reference 4 are either incorrect or unclear. Are you citing the map in the back? I don't know how the reference pages could be 22-25 if the text only goes to page 19.
  • You cite the date September 15, 1929, which I don't find in either of the articles you cited (footnotes 3 and 10).
  • Some of the things you add in the article don't appear to be sourced, and while they may be correct, everything has to be sourced, even if it seems obvious or common knowledge. If you disagree with this, please let me know, I would be happy to chat about it a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyes(BYU) (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    @Skyes(BYU): I fixed the first two issues.
    Your third issue, that "everything has to be sourced", is not necessarily correct. I think the guideline for this is WP:BLUE: The Good Article criteria merely state that inline citations are required 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". While that covers much, most, or possibly even (in the case of biographies of living people) all content in an article, it does not imply that you must cite everything everywhere for every single article, period. In this case, I do put the citations at the end of every paragraph, and the citations in the article all support the preceding content back to the previous citation. The exception is the lead, but as per the guideline WP:CITELEAD, I put the citations all in the body so that the lead is not clogged up with citations. Sorry to be such a nitpicker about this particular issue, but it's just that I checked that every detail was referenced in the body before I added it to the lead. epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    This is my first good article review, so I appreciate that information, it will help me a lot in this review and subsequent ones. I will continue to look at the page a little longer, but I am certain that I will pass it. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

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

Fantastic, high-quality article. Well researched, well-written. Sources are reliable. Neutral.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Impeccable grammar. A couple of small punctuation clarifications that I just fixed myself.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Fares in the 1950s

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the subsection "Construction Halts", the article mentions "a 1952 fare increase from 30 cents to 35 cents", and cites a magazine article published in 1973 which discussed the 35-cent fare. The early '50s was the time that the fare increased from a dime to a 15-cent token, a 50% increase. Moreover the citation states that the $200-million operationg subsidy occurred in 1971. I have corrected the date from 1952 to 1972, thinking it was a misprint. Solo Owl 14:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eall Ân Ûle: Yeah, it was a typo. The entire "Construction halts" section talked about the early 1970s, so that should've been an indicator that 1952 was a typo. Thanks for catching the mistake. epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Splitting of construction sections

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I honestly think we should split this into at least two separate articles: one for the historical proposals (with a summary of current construction), and one for the current line's construction. This article has about 98 kB of prose, which per WP:SIZERULE is at the threshold where an article should "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." When Phase 2 begins, and if later phases are built, this page will certainly exceed 100 kB of prose. The construction sections (1995–2017: Planning for current project, 2007–2017: First phase, and 2016–present: Second phase) already have about 50 kB of prose between them.

Also pinging Kew Gardens 613, who may also be interested in this. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have discussed this before-we definitely should at minimum split out the current line's construction. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I forgot that we discussed this, but I think it sounds reasonable. If no one objects to the split, I'll carry it out at the end of the month. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I will leave this open for another week to see if anyone has a different opinion of this proposed split. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have created Draft:Unbuilt plans for the Second Avenue Subway and Draft:Construction of the Second Avenue Subway. I'm planning to keep the "Unbuilt plans" page here and split out the "Construction" page. These drafts still need a little polishing, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unbuilt_plans_for_the_Second_Avenue_Subway&oldid=1205825473"