Talk:Lexington Avenue–63rd Street station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 12:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and return to the lead at the end. Please indicate when issues have been addressed by adding comments and possibly 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) 12:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

History

 * Construction
 * This needs an introduction, in view of the following discussion about IND and BMT sides. It should mention that prior to the merger in 1940, parts of the NY system were constructed by Independent Subway System (IND) and the Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT) companies. There is a ref for this on the IND article. The abbreviations should be spelled out on first introduction, but the abbreviations can be used subsequently.
 * I still think that listing the component companies would work better as an introduction, rather than an explanation after IND in particular has already been mentioned. So: These were the companies - these were the proposals - this was the final plan - seems to have a flow to it, where at the moment it introduces the proposals from the 1960s and then jumps back to the 1940s and forwards to 1969. What do you think? Bob1960evens (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think that listing the component companies would work better as an introduction, rather than an explanation after IND in particular has already been mentioned. So: These were the companies - these were the proposals - this was the final plan - seems to have a flow to it, where at the moment it introduces the proposals from the 1960s and then jumps back to the 1940s and forwards to 1969. What do you think? Bob1960evens (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

✅


 * 63rd Street Line needs a wikilink here as well as in the lead.

✅
 * Similarly, MTA needs to be "Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)" on first occurrence.

✅
 * Construction on the 63rd Street Line... This needs some more geographical info, to aid understanding. Piecing together the info from here and the next section, presumably there was one IND track and one BMT track on each level. Which was which? Can that be shown on the layout diagram? I initially assumed that there were a further two tracks on the upper level, running parallel to the two shown on the track layout, because the mention of a "one-track, one-side platform station" comes in the next section.
 * I mentioned which side is the northern and which side is the southern. I add a compass to the track map so that the direction is known. Originally, as the article states, there were four tracks, two on each level, one IND and one BMT per level. The IND is on the south side, while the BMT is on the north side. Until 2017, only the southern tracks, the IND tracks were in service, and before December 2016, the northern tracks were blocked off, giving the appearance of a one-track, one-side platform station. ✅
 * This is better. However, we are left with the three tunnels. Were these the two running tunnels for the IND 63rd Street Line, and one of the tunnels for the Second Avenue Line - BMT Broadway Line? While the details of the station are good, it is the wider context that needs a bit more clarity, in view of the complex nature of the construction, involving, as far as I can see, three lines. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't find this statement in any reference in the article, and not even in the article when the statement was put in. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lexington_Avenue–63rd_Street_(63rd_Street_Lines)&diff=prev&oldid=610355719 Since this cannot be referenced in any way, true or not, it does not belong in a Good Article Candidate. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There was mention about three bits of tunnel that they were trying to rent out in one of the refs, but I cannot remember which one. (Actually it was ref 14 "The Line That Time Forgot") Someone suggested using them to grow mushrooms, but I think I agree that it should just be removed. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Original station opens
 * when the upper levels of the multi-level 63rd Street Tunnel were completed for subway use. Looking at the 63rd Street Tunnel article, I think this needs to be something like "due to delays in the construction of the the multi-level 63rd Street Tunnel, caused by the financial crisis of the 1970s." or somesuch, to make it more obvious why there was a 6-year gap.

✅


 * Expansion for the Second Avenue Subway
 * ..."Lex 63" on every couple columns of tiles. Does not read well. Suggest "..."Lex 63" at regular intervals."

✅
 * The track layout shows 57th Street-7th Avenue station as being part of the BMT Broadway Line. Is this part of the Second Avenue line? Should it be mentioned?
 * 57th Street is part of the Broadway Line. The BMT 63rd Street Line breaks off north of the station and it includes this station. The BMT 63rd Street then becomes the IND Second Avenue Line.

Service history

 * The tunnel had gained notoriety as the "tunnel to nowhere"... What was the reason for this? Were the stations beyond the tunnel not used? I think it also needs to be 63rd Street Tunnel, since all of the section under discussion is in tunnel.

✅
 * All of the stations on the line opened on October 29, 1989. The connection to Queens Blvd opened in December 2001.
 * concurrent with the closure of the IND Sixth Avenue Line tracks and the 63rd Street Connector officially opened. Both of these need a bit of context, since the dates don't correspond to anything previously described. Why were the tracks closed? What does the 63rd Street Connector connect?

✅


 * Station layout
 * Elevator and escalator are wikilinked further down, but should be wikilinked on the first occurence and not subsequently.

✅
 * A third staircase between the platform levels has been construction. Presumably, "constructed."

✅
 * contained a sole stairway Suggest "contained a single stairway", as sole needs a definite article.

✅
 * replacing the originally planned escalators due to being more space-efficient. Suggest "replacing the originally planned escalators, as they use the space more effectively."

✅
 * I notice that there is no mention of ridership. Is this an oversight?

✅

That is the text reviewed. I will move on to the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this up and I won't be able to do anything tomorrow because it is Shabbat.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of riders to the Construction section above, and altered the track layout diagram, adding two more labels. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead is a little short for an article of this length. I think some info about where the lines go, rather than just mentioning F, Q and N trains would be good. There is no mention of timescales which have clearly been extemely drawn out. Perhaps something on Artwork, and it being one of the deepest stations would round it off.

✅
 * Not only done, but very well done. It now serves its purpose well. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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):
 * See comment above
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * See comment above
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I have now finished the review. You confused me a little by deleting refs while I was checking them, so all the numbers changed, but hey ho, that is the joys of working on a concurrent system. Since you seem to be pressing on with the fixes, I will not put the article on hold unless there is no further movement. Happy editing, and do let me know if anything is not clear. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As all of the issues raised in the review have now been addressed, I am pleased to award the article GA status. I have learnt a great deal about a station with a rather complex history. Thank you for your quick responses to the review. Having worked with you on four reviews in the last few days, I notice that your next nominations are quite a way down the GA queue, so I don't know if they will still be there if I continue working down the list. Shalom. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your work. Hopefully we will able to do more of these at some point.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)