Talk:History of Grand Central Terminal

GA nomination
I think it's at GA quality already, so I just nominated this article for GA status. Are you guys fine with being co-nominators? epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yessir, it looks great, though you should be duly noted first, as this is almost entirely your work! ɱ  (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

North End Access Project
I think that more should be included on the Grand Central North project I found a planning document for it at the back of this. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think that sounds like a good idea. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Track numbers
Is there a way we can bring up the track re-numberings explained here? I didn't see any mention of it on these articles.  Cards84664  (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, where's track 102A and 103A on our map?  Cards84664  (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think these "tracks" may actually be platform numbers because these platforms are Spanish solution. epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Cards84664  (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I never really bothered to use this ref because although I like iridetheharlemline, it's a self-published blog with a single uncredentialed amateur blogger. Not really a reliable source. The narrative makes sense and appears accurate, which is why I hope other more reliable sources might use this info. As well, it's a very specific detail that I thought might be too specific for these articles, but now we're really including most everything, so that point's no longer as relevant. ɱ  (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible FAC
I think we should try to get this to FAC as well. I believe this is extensive enough that any gaps in the history would be insignificant. Should I request a copy edit of this page at WP:GOCE? They might catch some things we may have missed. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Confusing passage

 * This sentence — "The current structure was built by and named for the New York Central Railroad, though it also served the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad and has continued under New York Central's successors" — leaves the reader wondering "has continued to what?" The article Grand Central Terminal says the station "was built by and named for the New York Central Railroad; it also served the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad and, later, successors to the New York Central." I suggest we adopt that text. PRRfan (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, that version is better than either we liked. But I'd like to note that based on the sentence structure, "continued" refers to the last verb used, in this case "served" or "serves". Like "the waiter served one large table, and continues to there out on the patio". ɱ  (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a regional usage to say "has continued" without "to serve" or "to do so"? In any case, the New Haven no longer exists, so the poor reader was left to wonder just what "has continued". In any case, the new text takes care of both problems, so all's well ends well. PRRfan (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

1976 bombing
I made an edit to the description of the 1976 incident in which a bomb planted at Grand Central by Croatian nationalists exploded, killing a police officer. I included a "citation needed" tag and reworded some of the description. My edit was promptly reverted on the ground that three sources cited at the end of the passage supported the earlier version of the text. This is wrong, and I intend to edit the passage once again in keeping with my earlier changes.

Before my edit, the article stated the following about the incident: On September 10, 1976, a group of Croatian nationalists planted a bomb in a coin locker at Grand Central Terminal. The group also hijacked a plane. After stating their political demands, they revealed the location and provided the instructions for disarming the Grand Central Terminal bomb. The disarming operation was not executed properly and the resulting explosion injured three New York City Police Department officers and killed one bomb squad specialist. There are two oddities about this description. First, the three sources listed at the end of the paragraph make no mention of instructions for disarming the bomb. They say that the bombmakers left directions for finding (or, in one source, "remov[ing]") the bomb--not "disarming" it. Second, the phrasing of the earlier version ("disarming operation was not executed properly") connotes some wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the officers tasked with disarming the bomb. None of the three sources suggests anything to that effect. The cited N.Y. Times article (an obituary of one of the bombers) states, "The police officers took the device to a bomb squad demolition range in the Bronx. There, as officers tried to defuse the bomb, it detonated, killing Officer Brian J. Murray, partly blinding Sgt. Terrence McTigue and wounding Officer Hank Dworkin and Deputy Inspector Fritz O. Behr." The cited Time magazine article states, "In extracting the bomb and the messages from the locker, New York police took successful precautions. They were not so fortunate in attempting to defuse the bomb, which was sealed in a home pressure cooker. When a detonating device failed to explode the bomb, four policemen went to have a closer look, and the bomb suddenly went off. One officer, his chest blown away, died instantly. The others were severely wounded." The cited book passage (on p.82 of Relentless Pursuit: The DSS and the Manhunt for the Al-Qaeda Terrorists) states, "A powerful bomb that had been planted in Grand Central Station exploded in a fireball of destruction that killed a detective from the NYPD Bomb Squad . . . ."

If there are other sources that support the assertions in the earlier version of the discussion of the 1976 bombing, they should be cited. These sources do not suffice. I am not a Croatian nationalist, so I have no interest in minimizing the severity of the bombing or assigning blame to the police rather than the bombmakers for the loss of life that resulted from this incident.

I have changed the text to read, "The bomb exploded as the police attempted to disarm it, injuring three NYPD officers and killing a bomb squad specialist." This version is (1) accurate, (2) supported by the cited sources, and (3) neutral as to the "blame" for the bomb's detonation. Pjb dinky (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying why you changed the text - it wasn't immediately clear why you added the citation needed template, as it seemed that the info about the presence of a bomb in GCT was already sourced to the Time article, the NY Times article, and the Katz book.With that explanation, it's much clearer that you were doubting the fact that the locker didn't contain instructions for disarming the bomb, not the fact that there was a bomb in the first place. I have no objection to your proposed change. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)