Talk:Cathedral Parkway–110th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pentagon 2057 (talk · contribs) 06:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I will be taking up this review. Expect comments soon. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 06:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * Lead looks good, just 2 small things I would like to raise: If it is possible do put the exact year of renovation, and I believe the phrase 'not used in revenue service' is more appropriate for the center track.
 * Is there any figures available for the cost of constructing the station?
 * No, I could only find that this was bundled into the cost of constructing the line. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the third paragraph of Construction and Opening, it mentions the the station was initially served by express trains from South Ferry, however it also mentions the original system only ran to City Hall. I think some information is missing here? In addition to that I also think moving this segment to the Service changes section would improve the flow of the article.
 * ✅ The system was extended to South Ferry within a year of the original City Hall-145th Street segment being opened. I've changed that. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also assume when it says "The platform extensions were opened in stages" it refers to the platform extensions along the whole line. If so please make this clear in the article.
 * The last paragraph of the design subsection seems redundant, i suggest removing it or trimming it and merging it with the previous paragraphs. Also is the decorative work mentioned at the end of the paragraph referring to the things at the start of the paragraph or the previous one? I hardly think telephone rooms are decorative works. If its the latter please move it to the end of the previous paragraph.
 * ✅ The last paragraph doesn't have anything that's already mentioned in the previous paragraphs. However I agree there's some information that should be rearranged, so I have done so. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 21th century renovation section seems a bit convoluted with all the back and forth between the relevant parties, if it could be simplified it would be good so it would be easier for readers to understand
 * What do you think about this? Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to resolve this as this was a complicated dispute. Do you have any suggestions?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , personally I would leave it alone. I don't think it can be condensed without leaving out key information. The entire reason the dispute occurred is because of the interests of the different parties. Epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to resolve this as this was a complicated dispute. Do you have any suggestions?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , personally I would leave it alone. I don't think it can be condensed without leaving out key information. The entire reason the dispute occurred is because of the interests of the different parties. Epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hold
Asides from these minor issues i do not see much problem with the article now and will put it on hold while the issues are resolved, after which i would give the article a second look. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 04:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've fixed these issues now, except the last one. I think it's better to mention the specifics of the dispute because it factored into how plans for the 110th Street station's renovation were changed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am satisfied with the edits made to the article and explanations provided for the issues that I have raised. I also apologize as due to my busy schedule i am not able to review the stations on this line en masse like I did for 4th av line. Passing. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 11:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)