Talk:IND World's Fair Line/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and return to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you mark any issues fixed with comments or maybe the ✅ template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

History

 * General. Having read the article through several times, I think it would benefit from a sentence or two to give it some context. So, the World Fair was planned in 1935, to lift NYC out of the depression. It was to be sited on Flushing Meadows Park, and to attract large numbers of visitors. I don't know whether the 44 million who attended was anywhere near the estimates. The site was crossed by the BMT and IRT elevated line at its northern end, and the IND Queens Boulevarde line ran along the southern edge. I also wonder about the copyright status of the 1939 Rapid Transit map listed in the external links section. Since it is now over 75 years old, it is probably ok to copy a bit of it, and the section below the Seamen's Bank panel, showing the park site and the two lines would make things much clearer.
 * I added some historical context. Would the Flushing Meadows-Corona Park map be useful for this article? epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced, since it gives no indication of where the subway lines are/were. A section of the 1939 map shows both very clearly, and would help to resolve the southern terminus / geographical north issue further down.Bob1960evens (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I could possibly add a transparent overlay to Flushing Meadows-Corona Park map, but the 1939 subway map works as well.
 * I have uploaded a small section of the 1939 map in case you want to use it. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll put it in now. epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In December 1936, a request was sent... This would read much better if it was in active voice, rather than passive voice. So "In December 1936, the Board of Transportation and the New York State Transit Commission sent a request to the New York City Board of Estimate..."
 * Done. epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and the nearby Jamaica storage yard which opened at the end of the month. Presumably, this is the end of December 1936, but it is a bit too far away from that for it to be clear. Suggest "...and the nearby Jamaica storage yard, (both of?) which opened at the end of the 1936."
 * Done.
 * It would cost about $1.2 million, with $700,000 of it for its construction... The "of it" does not work well. Suggest "It would cost about $1.2 million, with $700,000 allocated for its construction..."
 * Done.
 * ...to the P. T. Cox Contracting Company for a bid of $308,770. This seems rather less than the $700,000 mentioned in the previous paragraph. Is there an explanation?
 * It was the lowest bidder. I have corrected it. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * However, it was determined to be impractical due to the absence of permanent attractions in the park (Citi Field, USTA) that are present today. Citi Field and USTA need a bit more context. Suggest "...due to the absence of permanent attractions in the park, as facilities such as the Citi Field baseball park and USTA tennis centre were not built until much later." or somesuch.
 * Done.
 * ...using the western yard leads from 71st−Continental Avenues. I'm not sure what western yard leads are. Can it be clarified a little?
 * The tracks leading to the yard from the west.
 * It was built on a pine wooden trestle across the marshy swampland, which was then filled in. It is unclear what exactly was filled in. It seems a strange solution to build a line across a swamp, and fill in the swamp afterwards.
 * I clarified the situation. The fill was beforehand. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The GG mostly serviced the line... Suggest GG needs a little more explanation, rather than just a wikilink. So "...GG local service trains..." or somesuch.
 * Done.
 * ...during the PM rush hour and evening. Assuming PM means post meridian, and not something else, suggest "...during the afternoon rush hour and evening." for clarity.
 * Done.
 * Today, the seven grade time signals installed for the line... What are grade time signals? Needs clarifying.
 * That was irrelevant. I replaced them with simply "signals", with speed limits. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the end, improved Flushing Line service, and increased E, F, and GG service would provide improved transportation facilities for the fair. Were the E, F and GG service trains running on the Queen's Boulevarde line? If so, this needs to be mentioned.
 * Yes. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Station

 * World's Fair was the line's railroad southern (but geographically northern) terminus... This is just confusing. If you want to retain the "railroad southern" reference, the article needs to explain that trains running to the east on the Queen's Boulevarde line were designated as southbound, (not exactly sure why, and the wikilink doesn't really help), and thus trains turning off the east-west line and heading northwards were still deemed to be southbound. Again, a clear map of the park and the line, such as part of the 1939 map, would really help.
 * I added a footnote, but in terms of railroad direction, it is still railroad north. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is still railroad south, but I think a little explanation as to why a track that heads northwards is heading towards railroad south aids understanding for most readers. I think you may need to tweak the footnote, as the "railroad north" should be "railroad south". Bob1960evens (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The railroad direction was incorrect before. It would be a railroad south terminal if the train were heading from Queens Plaza (IND Queens Boulevard Line), for instance (which is geographically further north, so a railroad south train would be traveling north over the World's Fair line). But for trains heading from Downtown Manhattan, like the E train from World Trade Center, the World's Fair Line is railroad north. If anything, the footnote about railroad directions should go on the article about the IND Queens Boulevard Line, since "northbound trains" are geographically heading to the southeast. epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A third layup track was built south of the station. Suggest explanation to clarify layup, so "A third layup track was built south of the station, and was used to stable out-of-service trains." or somesuch.
 * It's the same as a railroad siding. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Competing IRT and BMT service

 * ...on the dual-operated Flushing Line (which was rebuilt into an express station for the Fair). Suggest removing the brackets, so "...on the dual-operated Flushing Line, which was rebuilt into an express station for the Fair."
 * Done.
 *  A Long Island Rail Road station (now Mets–Willets Point) was built next to the Flushing Line station. Context needed. So "The Long Island Rail Road, which ran across the park parallel to the Flushing Line, built a new station next to the Flushing Line station, which is now also known as Mets–Willets Point." Again, the map would help.
 * I added the Open Street Map for now. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That is the text reviewed. I will move on to reviewing the refs next. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping with the GAR. I can't edit during Shabbat. Also, thanks Bob1960evens for taking this up. I will continue to help with this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Refs
✅ ✅ ✅ Fixed Fixed Fixed
 * Ref 1(c) IND Subway Line To 1939 World's Fair. This is used to support the opening dates of the line, but there is no mention of them in the text. The dates do appear in ref 4, which is also used for this sentence, so 1(c) should be removed.
 * Ref 3: IND 1939 Worlds Fair Line. This contains lots of useful info about contracts, but none that supports the text at 3(a), 3(b) or 3(e). Seven train signals that were installed for the World's Fair Line (ref 3(c)) is not exactly supported by the text, which suggests that the signals were pre-existing, but modified for their new role.
 * Ref 4: History of the Independent Subway. 4(b) and 4(d) support the line opening on April 22, 1939, but this was only for testing purposes, and it actually opened on April 30.
 * Ref 6: EXPANDED TRANSIT FOR FAIR IS ASKED. This links to a blank page for me, so I cannot check it.
 * Ref 8: Plans to be Drawn for 6th Av. Subway. This links to a blank page for me, so I cannot check it.
 * Ref 11: TO BUILD FAIR SUBWAY P. T. Cox. This links to a blank page for me, so I cannot check it.
 * Further investigation suggests that the urls are wrong. Those that do not work start with https://query.nytimes.com. Those that do just start with query.nytimes.com.

The links at one point were changed. They are now http instead of https. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC) ✅ ✅ – Moved ✅
 * Ref 11: TO BUILD FAIR SUBWAY P. T. Cox. It is not obvious how 11(c) supports any of the text associated with it, since the text is about the removal of the line, while the reference is about the early stages of construction.
 * Ref 22: HOW TO GET TO THE FAIR GROUNDS; BY SUBWAY. 22(a) supports the text: Service generally ran until 1:00am., but the ref says 1:30am.
 * Ref 23: CITY SUBWAY RIDE TO FAIR TO COST 10C. 23(a) supports the text: Service generally ran until 1:00am. but there is no mention of operating times in the ref.
 * Ref 24: NEW SUBWAY SPUR IS READY TO OPEN. This supports the text: Service generally ran until 1:00am., but the ref says 1:30am.

Summary
✅
 * Having checked all of the online refs, which was most of them, there are a couple of items which could be included in the article. One is the actual cost, which at the end of the project is quoted as $1.7M, rather than the $1.2M suggested at the start of the project. (See refs 26 and 27, for instance). The other is that ref 26 carries a good discussion of actual passenger numbers, as opposed to the projected numbers used to justify the line at the start of the project.

✅
 * Both of the images of trains are not free, and have a banner stating that a fair use rationale is required for use in this article. I note that both have been reduced in size, which is presumably part of the process to ensure that they can be used, but the actual rationale ought to be completed, explaining why the article benefits from the inclusion of these pictures, and the fact that there are no free alternatives.

✅
 * The lead should serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is a little short to do this, as there is no mention of anything from the Station and Competing IRT and BMT service sections. Some mention of the dual fare system, and the fact that there were other services competing for World Fair traffic would probably resolve this.

The formal bit

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, but when will you get back to the review? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No bother. I'll be back today. All the children and grandchildren arrived for Christmas, so I was busy with other things. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is perfectly fine. I hope it was nice spending time with family.

Well done on an interesting article about an ephemeral railroad. I have now completed my review, and I hope the issues raised are not too onorous. I will put it on hold, and will check back regularly, to see how you are getting on. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have completed what has been asked of me.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added an "image has rationale=yes" parameter to the two images, now that a rationale has been provided, and made two minor tweaks to the article. I am pleased to be able to award it good article status. Keep up the good work.