Template:Did you know nominations/East Side Access
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
East Side Access[edit]
- ... that the East Side Access railroad expansion project in New York City costs about $3,500,000,000 per mile ($2.2×109/km) of new tunnel, seven times higher than in other countries? Source: NY Times 2017. "The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as “East Side Access,” has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5 billion for each new mile of track — seven times the average elsewhere in the world.".
- ALT1:.. that a railroad expansion to New York City's Grand Central Terminal is estimated to cost US$11.1 billion in total? Source: NY Times 2018. "A new train station under Grand Central Terminal and a tunnel connecting it to the Long Island Rail Road will now cost more than $11 billion — about $1 billion more than a 2014 estimate, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority."
- ALT2:.. that the East Side Access railroad expansion project in New York City, once proposed for completion in 2009 at a cost of US$4.3 billion, but now is planned for completion in 2022 at a cost of US$11 billion? Sources: (1) NY Daily News 2014. "The authority originally estimated the link would be ready for LIRR riders by 2009 at a cost of $4.3 billion, according to the state controller's office." (2) NY Times 2018. See the $11 billion quote mentioned in ALT1, plus: "The project is unlikely to open before December 2022."
- Reviewed: Lapa do Santo
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk), Kew Gardens 613 (talk), and PrecipiceofDuck (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 01:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC).
This is my first DYK review, but I've done some DYK nominations and I do believe this is a pretty clear case. New enough, long enough, well-sourced with reliable inline cites, neutral, no copyvio/plagarism/close paragraphasing (all that comes up with the Copyvio Tool is either a quote or just a title that can't be paraphrased anymore), hooks are clearly cited by a reliable sources, and QPQ has been done. I prefer the original hook, as it seems the most interesting. I don't see anything that would prevent this from passing, so good to go! --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
