Talk:Prospect Avenue station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleProspect Avenue station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 24, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the New York City Subway stations at 9th, 25th, 59th, and Union Streets, as well as Prospect Avenue, were opened with a competition between two trains heading to Coney Island?

Untitled[edit]

I copied this entire thing from the Union St station article, but changed the specifics. RobLinwood 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prospect Avenue (BMT Fourth 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) 05:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prospect Avenue station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 13:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this also. TRM has taken the rest. 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC) @1.02 editor: Thanks so much!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Article is already nearly on par with the rest of the articles, just some issues left to be addressed.

  • 'The contract for the section of the line that included the Prospect Avenue station, Route 11A3, which extended from 10th Street to 27th Street, was awarded on May 22, 1908, ' awarded to who?
  • Also separate the sentence from the approval part as its very lenghty.
  • 1920s renovation- Was the platforms extended twice or only once? it currently suggests that there was an extension in 1922 and 1925.
    • @1.02 editor: The BMT had been supposed to extend them, but did not until 1925. I thought that was clear from the text. How should I clarify this point?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kew Gardens 613: It is mentioned 'On June 27, 1922, the New York State Transit Commission directed its engineers to prepare plans to lengthen the platforms at 23 stations of the Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT)' and 'The BMT had been ordered by the Transit Commission to lengthen these platforms since September 1923'. This is what led to it being confusing for me, as i interpreted the second statement as another order to lengthen the platforms. This comes to the question of which date is correct or were they ordered to do it twice? 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613:?
  • 2017 renovation- 'updates' change to 'upgrades'
  • Also specify who the contract was awarded to for the 2017 renovation
    • It does specify, saying Citnalta-Forte Joint Venture. It was just in the wrong place in the paragraph. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • paragraph on the celing being lower should be removed.

Hold[edit]

Will be putting the article on hold now. 1.02 editor (T/C) 07:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have been fixed, passing. 1.02 editor (T/C) 03:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk) and Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 12:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Individual reviews
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Review of 9th street DannyS712 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fourth Avenue/Ninth Street station/GA1 is just over 7 days before nomination, but IAR

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Review of 25th street DannyS712 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Review of 45th street DannyS712 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:45th Street station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line)/GA1 is also a tad over 7 days, but IAR

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Review of 53rd street DannyS712 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Review of 59th street DannyS712 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Review of Union street DannyS712 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Review of Prospect avenue DannyS712 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

@Epicgenius: for ALT1, I struggled to find the fact on the source linked - where on the page is it / what paragraph am I looking for? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ALT0 isn't really interesting, and can I suggest "9th" instead of "Ninth" to be consistent? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, thanks for taking this up. ALT1 is actually split up into two different locations in all these articles. I will add these sources to the lead of all the articles. Yes, we can switch "9th" for "Ninth". I have suggested ALT2 too, same source as ALT0. epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I meant where in the source is the information / what paragraph in the source page am I looking for? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712 For ALT1, for the first source, the relevant paragraph is on the right side of the page toward the top. The second source is offline. For ALT0/ALT2, the relevant page range is offline but you can check this source too. epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the Eagle source also mentions a competition between two trains using the Sea Beach and West End lines, stopping at these stations. Would that make for a good hook? It is not cited in these articles yet. epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, found the part in the source for ALT1. But, it appears to only say the extensions were authorized / funded, not that they occured --DannyS712 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: I might have picked the wrong source. Could you check out ALT3? epicgenius (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The stations aren't all mentioned in the source for alt3 --DannyS712 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All right, for ALT1, I have added this source to all the articles. For ALT0/ALT2, five of the seven stations are mentioned (all except 45th and 53rd) and there are other sources (like this and Cudahy) which show that all of the Fourth Avenue stations opened at the same time. I will add these soon. epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: So apparently my ALT3 was wrong. I have added an ALT4. Can you take a look at this? Many thanks. I have also fixed the sourcing for ALT0 and ALT2 across all pages epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapsed the individual reviews to make this more manageable, and removed the AGF for the source for the hook, since it looks like it'll be a different hook than the one those were for. I'll take a look at the alts proposed. Other than the hook being interesting, in the articles, and cited, the other requirements are met. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0: Red XN not interesting
ALT1: Rejected Source does not confirm the hook - it says the extensions were authorized / funded, not that they occured
ALT2: Red XN not interesting
ALT3: Red XN Was withdrawn by nominator
ALT4: Interesting enough, AGF for offline sources. Will check that it is in all the articles and sourced, but barring further complications it should be okay
Alt4 is approved --DannyS712 (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately given the overlap between articles, some of these fall short of the minimum 1500 characters of original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah and Nikkimaria: Would it be all right to remove the 45th and 53rd Street links, given that they are almost identical up to the Exits subsection? These seem to be the odd ones out (having not opened with the rest of the stations). So basically this? epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What content are you counting towards which article? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seems to add up. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting ALT5, which has been approved verbally. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]