Talk:14th Street Tunnel shutdown

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kxie16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Replacement plan for shutdown
There's very little to no space devoted to the replacement plan. This covers what was going to happen, not what actually did in the end.

To get someone started, (at least with search terms) here are two pieces from the New York Daily News (one an editorial)

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-l-train-construction-solution-benchwall-20190425-hlr6er2p3zed5l4lwserhtgnnu-story.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-gateway-20190429-xi3rcvu3szh7vfmbz7gasl3shu-story.htm

Sammy Finkelman


 * The first link is already in the article. The modified plan is covered further down. epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Time to trim the article down a bit?
90% of the article is about the planning of the operation, with a paltry few lines about the actual construction. (Admittedly, the planning did drag on and generate more news than the actual work.) At the time, it was useful and informative for people who needed to know what was happening recently, but now that it's done, the blow-by-blow is rather excessive. Time to trim it down? SilverbackNet talk 02:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an exaggeration of the sections' sizes, as I would not call a five-paragraph section "a paltry few lines about the actual construction". Nevertheless, trimming some of the minor details is probably the best way to go. Realistically I don't think a wholesale removal should happen, as that would be a rather drastic revision to an article that was recently reviewed for Good Article status. But details about service revisions might be okay. Pinging about this as well. epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If anything, we should just increase details on the actual construction. The weekly L Project Newsletters have a lot of information I can add when I have a chance-maybe in June I will have time.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sounds good. epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, looking at it now over a year later, I agree this should be trimmed. For one thing, more than anything, so much of the detail about the plans never happened because of the change of plans. And a lot of those details are far too trivial for an encyclopedia article. They ultimately don't show long term significance, making a lot of it a WP:NOTNEWS issue. Plus the article needs an audit for tense, as some parts are still in simple future tense, saying what will happen, when the whole project has not only been completed, but those things never happened because of the entire course change. It's a wonderfully researched article, but it was clearly written as an ongoing record of the project, not a retrospective overview. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)