This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
I have just modified one external link on
103rd Street (IRT Broadway鈥揝eventh 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: 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.
Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the
January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own
right here.
"original IRT, the station" 鈫 "original IRT, 103rd Street station"
Exits
Good
In popular culture
Currently reads as trivia; if the station is integral to the Burroughs book, that should be expanded upon. I've seen Black Swan enough to know that mention is trivial
Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! 鈥 GhostRiver22:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)reply
With no response from the nominator in seven days, as well as no response on their other GAN, I'm failing this one. Anyone is welcome to renominate at any time. 鈥 GhostRiver21:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
GhostRiver: I know this review has been closed as failed, so sorry for the late response - I did not see this until just now. I can tidy up most of these relatively quickly and renominate it. Just a heads up if you're interested in reviewing again.
Epicgenius (
talk)
13:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Epicgenius As you can tell from my uncharacteristic absence in getting to this, it may be difficult to get me to rereview as I continue to deal with health and personal issues. However, it's a short article, and even if I cannot rereview, I'm sure it will be picked up in short order. 鈥 GhostRiver18:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)reply
"Station code" appears to be a code used for behind-the-scenes systems like GTFS, rather than in common public use like Amtrak station codes. As such, it's not important enough to be in the infobox, which is for the most important information.
I prefer to have the station layout section before the history section - I think describing the station as it currently is should come before how it was - but that's a personal preference and not a requirement. Having the lede match the order is fine.
History
Might be worth mentioning the
East Side Branch splitting off just to the south.
...from 82nd Street to 104th Street... seems to imply that this was the northern end of cosntruction, but since it opened as far as 145th Street, that wasn't the case. Was 82nd to 104th just a certain contract?
Gotcha. I'd recommend noting that it was carried out (even without a date) rather than leaving it hanging.
Some detail on the nature of the compromise would be good.
Unfortunately, the source doesn't elaborate beyond that. However, there have been several instances in which the LPC has made such compromises (for example, most of the interior of
Grand Central Terminal's main building is a landmark, except for a shoe-shine stand). I'm not surprised that a compromise occurred, given how official landmark status severely restricts how a property owner could modify the appearance of their property.
Epicgenius (
talk)
21:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Station layout
Per discussions at Wikiproject Trains, an HTML layout is not needed for a simple platform arrangement like this, especially with only a single service with no variation.
Right now, there's a stack of 6 images on the right sides - 3 from history, 3 from layout. Some of these need to be moved or eliminated so that they properly stay with the text and do not squeeze the citations.
This section should only include current station details. The old platform lengths are not relevant in this section, and the details of the no-longer-extant control house and headhouse should be in the history section.
The old platform lengths are in this section because the section mentions platform extensions to the south of the original platforms. This is particularly relevant to the "Design" section where the platform extensions are mentioned as having a slightly different design from the original platforms. Without context, the detail of the platform extension looks out of place.As for the control house, you're right that it's not a current station detail. However, given that the history section talks more about events (as opposed to descriptions), I'm not sure that this subsection would fit there.
Epicgenius (
talk)
13:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, those are both fine. I do recommend two changes:
Rename section to "Entrances/exits"
Consistently use either "station house" or "control house" (preferably the former) - using both makes it sound like there were two separate buildings.
I'm not sure that this is a GAN requirement. This parameter is still useful as it determines when the source was originally accessed. Besides, InternetArchiveBot doesn't automatically remove the access dates when archiving links - I'd imagine that it would do so if the access date was truly unnecessary.
Epicgenius (
talk)
13:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Not required, and I won't insist on it. Per
Help:Citation Style 1: It is not required for linked documents that do not change. To me, that would include any archived citation.
I see your point. I was focusing more on the sentence access-date [...] should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites. So if the "url" parameter of an archived citation becomes a dead link in the future, then a reader can verify that the original URL was live as of that access-date. For example, the citation "Our Subway Open: 150,000 Try It; Mayor McClellan Runs the First Official Train". The New York Times. October 28, 1904. p. 1. Archived from the original on December 13, 2021. Retrieved April 21, 2020. was live as of April 21, 2020, but it may be dead in the future.
Epicgenius (
talk)
17:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Sources requiring subscription etc (like the Proquest cite) should be tagged as such
I have added these. It's worth noting that I cannot add the url-access parameter to the ProQuest source as there is nothing in the url parameter. Technically, the ProQuest link is only an identifier; thus, it is seen as a print source, not as an online source.
Epicgenius (
talk)
13:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Ugh, that's annoying. Thanks for adding them the best you could.
Further reading doesn't seem very relevant - should either be cited in the prose, or removed
Not strictly required for GA, but I strongly encourage you to do with all articles especially GA etc: Add alt text for images. It's the #1 thing you can do as an editor to improve accessibility.