Template:Did you know nominations/72nd Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

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 Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

72nd Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

(

)

72nd Street original entrance

... that the original entrance to New York City's 72nd Street station (pictured) was once called "a miserable monstrosity as to architecture" and recommended for demolition? Source: (1) Gray, Christopher (October 10, 2004). "New York's Subway: That Engineering Marvel Also Had Architects". The New York Times. (2) Proceedings of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners. Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners. January 24, 1905. p. 576.
- ALT1:... that plans to renovate New York City's 72nd Street station were scrapped after the founders of Ben & Jerry's ice cream company wanted to hire non-union labor for the work? Source: "Ben & Jerry mixing it up to sweeten subway station". The Brattleboro Reformer. April 5, 1988.
- ALT2:... that the musical notation for an excerpt of Verdi's Rigoletto can be seen inside an entrance to New York City's 72nd Street station? Source: "Laced Canopy, 2002". MTA Arts & Design

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/ASİMKK

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk) and Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC).

Some issues with the article text relevant to the hooks. On ALT0, one relevant sentence in the article attributes the quote to an anonymous critic, but the source attributes the statement to an earlier New York Times editorial with no mention of if the author was anonymous or not. The article also does not mention the structure was recommended for demolition, only that it was "a danger to life and limb", which is not quite the same. This does seem supported by the source however, albeit euphemistically, so it's a matter of putting it into the article. On ALT1, the relevant article sentence states the project died in the April which isn't quite supported by the source. It clearly died, as per the preceding New York Magazine article, but the sentence goes a bit beyond what is available in the source. On ALT2, the text specifies the musical notes are only visible from a certain angle, which I cannot find in the source. In all these cases the hooks themselves seem well supported, and other DYK requirements are met, so with some tweaks to the relevant article sentences this should be good to go. CMD (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the review. For ALT0, I've changed the mention to the editorial, and I've added the bit about it being recommended for demolition to the article. For ALT1, it actually seems to be correct, as the contract expired after March 31, 1988, but I have changed it anyway. For ALT2, I have removed that detail, which precedes the GA expansion. Epicgenius (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  - The source for ALT1 indicates there was ongoing arbitration at the time, and that was already on April 5, so the issue appears to have gone on at least into April, ending whenever "soon" is after that.
  - Nonetheless, ALT0 and its associated picture (appropriately licenced, works at scale) are the standout hook, and so happy to pass that following your edits. ALT2 also passes, and is by itself also interesting, although my preference remains for ALT0 (and generally I assume ALT0s are preferred by nominators too). CMD (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)