Talk:190th Street station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accessibility[edit]

Yes, I believe it's important to note if a subway station is accessible or not whenever there is an elevator. But I don't think it is relevant to the station to point out where the nearest accessible station is. That is more of a transit guide issue (see WP:NOT a travel guide). If someone needs to find the nearest accessible station, the user would be better off looking at the service article (in this case, the A (New York City Subway service)). Clark Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) is almost the same situation–an elevator takes passengers from street level to the mezzanine, but there is no elevator to the platform. But that article doesn't say where the next ADA accessible station is. Tinlinkin 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nearest accessible station information is relevant to how well the MTA is complying with ADA imperatives. I trust any disabled person who reads this article will have enough respect for Wikipedia policy not to use the information to aid them in getting around the city.--agr (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 190th Street (IND Eighth Avenue 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GA comments[edit]

I'm looking at doing a GA review of this article. There are some potential flaws that should probably be corrected before I start:

  • The NRHP nomination form is a dead link. It is supposedly available on archive.org, but all I get is a Java error.
  • The text claims the platforms are 50 feet wide (cited to that nomination form). That's clearly not true.
  • The station has no entrances anywhere near 190th Street - so why is that its name? That seems important to discuss.
    • I added a sentence about not having any entrances near 190th Street. There don't seem to be any closed entrance at that station. As for the why, I can't say without violating WP:SYNTH, though I guess it's for the name recognition - the same reason why Pelham Bay Park (IRT Pelham Line) is called "Pelham Bay Park" even though you need to cross a highway and walk a little to get to the actual park. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Hudson Yards' relation to sea level pertinent" Just say by comparison, Hudson Yards station is 110 feet deep or something similar.

@Pi.1415926535: I turned it into a note.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The accessible entrance at 181st Street is not relevant here - Wikipedia is not a travel guide.

 Done

  • A number of the images included in the article have very short descriptions on their Commons file page. Images that are used in GA should have useful descriptions and filenames, and no other errors, as they will be clicked on by viewers.
  • Citation 33 is not a reliable and verifiable source; the information should be recited with a verifiable source.
    That source is not reliable at all. This was added by @Beyond My Ken: several years ago. [1]. I haven't found anything verifying it so I will hide the text.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the information about the building originally being brick. There is no requirement that a reliable source be available to any particular person at any particular time. A guided tour led by NYC Parks Department personnel is most decidedly a reliable source, and, in fact, since they do these tours periodically, the information can be verified by anyone who takes the time to attend one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note: rearranged for clarity and consistency.) I'm not taking sides either way, but if a secondary source can be found, that resolves the problem right there. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 2 does not appear in my search of the NYT archives, which is strange. Is it possible to provide a source link (even behind a paywall)? Other paywalled NYT links should get {{closed access}} and |subscription=yes in the citation template.

 Done

  • SubwayNut is self-published by one person (i.e, not the most reliable source), and here it's only used to support an unimportant fact. Probably not worth having.

 Done

  • No need to abbreviate NY or have the zip code in the infobox. The address is for location, not mail.
    • @Epicgenius, LRG5784, DanTD, and Tdorante10: It is like this for every NYC Subway article. I would have to hear what others think.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I don't see anything wrong with having the zip code in the infobox. Whether you want to abbreviate or spell out the state is up for debate, I don't care either way. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the ZIP code should be kept, just to be consistent. epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are fixed (or justified), I can probably do a pretty speedy GA review. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC) @Pi.1415926535: Most, if not all, of these issues have been resolved. @Pi.1415926535: The above ping by Kew Gardens 613 didn't work. epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Will you do a review? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider it, but I probably won't be able to for at least another week. And I'm wary of doing so if I get resistance over something as obvious as removing a completely unneeded zip code simply because other articles have them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:190th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mgasparin (talk · contribs) 08:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


1a. Is this article fairly well written? The prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors: The article is quite detailed concerning history and construction, which is good.
1b. "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

2a. Has an appropriate reference section:
2b. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
2c. No original research:

All claims and facts are backed up with references and no original research appears to be present.

2d. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

3a. Major aspects:
3b. Focused (see summary style):

This article gives the reader a very balanced mix of generality and detail such that it would be useful to anyone.

4. Is it neutral?

4a. Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable? No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

6a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
6b. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Plenty of pictures, perhaps even too many. I would consider removing some images from the article, although this is not mandatory.

Pass or Fail:

Overall, this article is very well written and is very informative about the history, layout, constuction, etc., of this NYC subway station. It provides numerous images and cites all sources of factual information. I pass this article on these grounds.Mgasparin (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responding to request at GAN talk page. Read through the article and am not having any issue with it being passed as a Good Article. Checked all the images and a few references and they are fine. Not concerned about the zip code discussion on the talk page as it is not part of the GA criteria. Only suggestions would be to get rid of the gallery heading as the images are all entrances so they fit nicely in the above section. Also 2020 repairs do not really fit in history. It does seem a bit short, but I can't think of much else that can really be added. Sometimes an article is just good. AIRcorn (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking over this. I have removed the heading. I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:190th_Street_station&oldid=1195895493"