Template:Did you know nominations/Accessibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- 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 MeegsC (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Accessibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- ... that a 2018 report found that, of 122 New York City neighborhoods with subway stations, only 62 had wheelchair-accessible stations? Source: "Service Denied: Accessibility and the New York City Subway System". Office of the New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. July 17, 2018.
- ALT1:... that a separate New York City transport system was proposed for the disabled on the grounds it would be too expensive to make the regular system accessible? Source: Maitland, Leslie (October 1, 1979). "Suit Asserts M.T.A. Fails To Provide for Disabled". The New York Times.
- ALT2:... that in 2018, only about a quarter of New York City's 472 subway stations had elevators, among the lowest accessibility rates of the world's major transit systems? Source: Patel, Jugal K. (February 11, 2019). "Where the Subway Limits New Yorkers With Disabilities". The New York Times.
- ALT3:... that New York City's paratransit system was expanded in 1998 after complaints of rides that took several hours, even as only 26 of 468 subway stations were accessible? Source: McFadden, Robert D. (November 23, 1998). "Better Transportation Planned for Disabled". The New York Times
- ALT4:... that a year after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was passed, New York City's bus system was almost fully accessible, but the subway system was not? Source: Sims, Calvin (July 19, 1991). "Handicapped Find Transit More Accessible". The New York Times.
Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 17:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC).
Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. Article was nominated within 7 days of passing GA. QPQ has been completed. No concerning pings on Earwigs for copyvio or close paraphrasing. Hooks are cited, short enough for DYK, and interesting; personally think ALT1 is the best of the lot. Morgan695 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius, the first paragraph of the section "Future accessible stations" is completely unsourced. Can one of you please sort that out, and ping me when you've done so? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- MeegsC, thanks for the comment. This was brought up in the GA review but is explained by the hidden comment:
<!-- NOTE: cites for this paragraph have been covered about in the table below. No need to tag {{cn}} -->
However, should I add the cites there anyway? There would be 40+ citations for this paragraph so I'm just thinking of removing this paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Epicgenius, I think it would be okay to put a footnote to that effect at the end of the paragraph. Maybe as a "Note 1" (i.e. broken out into a different section than the general references)? MeegsC (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @MeegsC: I've considered this issue further. Since the table is likely to change very frequently and the paragraph is already outdated, I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Epicgenius, I think it would be okay to put a footnote to that effect at the end of the paragraph. Maybe as a "Note 1" (i.e. broken out into a different section than the general references)? MeegsC (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- MeegsC, thanks for the comment. This was brought up in the GA review but is explained by the hidden comment:
