Talk:1 (New York City Subway service)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in New York City Low‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as High-importance).

	1 (New York City Subway service) was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 18, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 18, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 7, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed March 18, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former good article nominee

Why are the addresses of the stations not listed on the maps?

In Washington, DC the Metro maps all list the address or intersection not just the street name.

There is most definitely a niche market for directories of street address of train and subway stations all over the US.

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the MTA New York City Subway map. For one thing, stations in New York City do not have addresses, per se; most subway entrances are not part of buildings, but are in the middle of sidewalks. In addition, the subway map is already crowded enough as it is without having the intersection listed under every station. Each line on the map typically has the street it runs under/over noted (e.g., the IND Sixth Avenue Line has "6 Av" noted along its length); this is sufficient to identify the location of the great majority of stations. —Larry V 01:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have seen the shuttle station listings, I have reconfigured them. I will be doing the same to the regular subway service articles, starting with this one. The MTA does this with their information. (example). --imdanumber1 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article against the Good Article (GA) criteria, and find that the article doesn't seem to meet one or more categories. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title.

1. Well-written: Borderline - The #Service history section's paragraphing needs tidied up, but the article is (otherwise) readable.
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Failed - The article cites no reliable sources (see WP:SELFPUB) - the only reference is to a myspace-style AOL Groups site.
7. Images: Pass

My thanks to the lead editors for your hard work; please keep it up.

Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made (or alternatively seek a GA Review).

Regards, AGK 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Comments: This article is pretty good, but I don't feel it yet qualifies for 'good article' status for the following reasons:

• (1a) The Service History section is written in proseline, and it should be rewritten either as a timeline or, preferably, in paragraph-form.
• (3a) The article feels like it is lacking some information: the line opened in 1904, but when did construction begin, and why did city officials feel that there was a need to build this line? In other words, give a brief history of the creation of the line -- this should probably have its own section.
• (3a) Beyond the service history, there must be other noteworthy information about the line: do nearby residents complain about the noise, does it operate 24-hours a day, are there insufficient trains, is service generally on-time? Have any interesting/newsworthy events ever occured on the line?
• (2a) The inline-citations are pretty random; didn't all the information from the Service History section come from the same few sources? Why are some lines cited, and some not? Perhaps it would be better to simply remove the inline-cites (but do keep the reference section); or at the top or bottom of the section, write: References: [1], [2]
• (1b) One last minor point -- the pictures are a bit clunky, and should be reorganized slightly: one requires a frame, and they are misaligned (try putting their code at the very top of the section, so they will automatically line up, and perhaps move the two small bullet images to the left-hand side).

As I said, it's a decent article, but right now there is little to distinguish it from the 28 other subway services in New York. When these issues have been addressed, feel free to resubmit the article for GA review! --Xiaphias 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(3a) should be handled by a link to original IRT subway. With (2a), the problem is that the main source is the unreliable "line by line history" site. There are maps and newspaper articles that can be used; I'll have a go at it eventually. --NE2 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Line by Line history page is not that its unreliable, it doesn't point to any primary, or even secondary sources. Eric B e-mailed me where he got them from, although it would make sense to put them onto the page. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it did cite sources, we'd preferably use those sources. --NE2 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the page given the ongoing revert war. I would remind both parties of WP:3RR and WP:NPA. If you have issues over the content, you should be discussing them on this talk page. If you cannot reach consensus, then you should seek dispute resolution. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to add this redirect, 1 (BMT) (edit talk links history), (which I just initialized "Properly" for the target Q (New York City Subway service) (edit talk links history)) seems a very cryptic name and ought to be avoided--its certainly no aid to other editors. As best as I can see, all this is a Typing-aid templates in article space instead of template space and I'm tempted to nominate it for RFD/MFD. I'd hope the originator will do the classy thing and just {{db-author}} it, instead of costing others time. Redirects really need to have a meaningful name, or widely understood abbreviation, not just be some locally understood bit of jargon.

• • I think I can see why 1 (BMT) was created. It's a hard link to the historical service, which at the moment happens to be described in Q (New York City Subway service), but might—indeed, probably will—be described somewhere else in the future. Marc Shepherd 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreover, there is some template imbedded in that article which takes the pipetrick argument '|Q}}' which apparently concocts a link... this shouldn't be overused, as per my comments on that talk on the rough shape of the page quality overall and the obvious overuse of links in general. Those are only tolerable as long as it takes to refactor the page. I fiddled a little, but clearly sections by sublines, but time periods (as I added) or by both is in order to organize the page for readers. If only so as to break up the tedious text of the historical litany.

• • IMO, the service history sections are pretty awful for pretty much all of the NYCS service pages. It's a very big job to edit them so that they: A) read well as prose; B) are accurate; C) present all of the desired information in a sensible way. Part of the problem is that the services have changed so often. Practically every service that is physically possible has been operated at some point. Marc Shepherd 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So please focus on the fixups, pretty please even, and try to remember reverts are a slap in the face to people, and just asking for a slap back. They really ought to be banned except to revert vandals. // FrankB 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ditto to that. I've taken a look at the work both of these editors have done—both on this page and on many other pages. Both have made edits I disagreed with, and both have made important contributions that are extremely useful. They need to find a way to value each other's contributions. The NYC Subway pages are vast and heavily inter-connected. It is especially important to seek consensus before making any change that fundamentally changes the relationship among various pages. Marc Shepherd 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is done with the disambiguation redirect, we need to note that a few pages exist at similar names: BMT 6, BMT 12, BMT 13. --NE2 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the correct "long name" for BMT 1 should be 1 (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation service). This would be totally clear, and would mirror the article naming conventions for the current NYC Subway services, e.g., 1 (New York City Subway service). Marc Shepherd 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably best for that and the other services. It avoids an (non-parenthethical) abbreviation in an article name and makes the title of the article clearer per above. Tinlinkin 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, the text was originally rewritten by NE2, then "cleaned up" by Imdanumber1, and then NE2 reverted some redirect changes, which sparked the edit war.

Here is my opinion on NE2's decision to revert in order to reinsert redirects in this article (the third link of the above)--Presented as "(NE2's version) -> (Imdanumber1's version)", I either agree with NE2's reversion of a particular link, or disagree:

1. 1 (BMT) -> Q (New York City Subway service): predecessor service, agree per Marc Shepherd if the predecessor was so much different than the current service
2. 3 (NYCS) -> 3 (New York City Subway service): redirect from abbreviation, disagree
3. First subway (New York City) -> History of the IRT subway before 1918: specific name. agree
4. Lexington Avenue Line (IRT) -> IRT Lexington Avenue Line: cosmetic (non-consequential), disagree
5. Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line -> IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line: cosmetic, disagree
6. Times Square–42nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) ->Times Square–42nd Street (New York City Subway)#IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line platforms: specific section: agree
7. South Ferry (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line) -> South Ferry (New York City Subway): specific section: agree
8. Brooklyn Branch -> IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line: part of a whole: not fond of this redirect (I have never heard "Brooklyn Branch" before) but agree
9. Eastern Parkway Line or New Lots Line -> IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line: distinct sections: agree
10. Nostrand Avenue Line (IRT) -> IRT Nostrand Avenue Line: cosmetic, disagree

However, I also see that because "IRT" is implied throughout the article unless indicated otherwise, NE2 tried to reduce redundancies of "IRT". So the links probably should have been piped instead of forced redirects. So take my opinion, or leave it, please. Tinlinkin 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those reasons seem reasonable. However, there is no section on the IRT Bway-7th Line, but will be if the article gets revamped or if the station gets merged with South Ferry-Whitehall Street on the BMT line, so that can probably stay. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to think about what to do with South Ferry when the new station opens, since the old station will still be there, City Hall-style. Historical references to South Ferry (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) will want to be to the old station, but current references to the new one.

By the way, I would not have reverted had he only changed the "disagree" ones, but would still be annoyed, and would pursue sanctions if he continued. --NE2 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the new station opens, we should create an article called Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway), which would include the content of the present Whitehall Street (BMT Broadway Line) article, and would also describe the new South Ferry station. As NE2 suggests, the original SF station article would remain as-is. Marc Shepherd 11:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Why does NE2 say that he "would still be annoyed, and would pursue sanctions if I continued"? If he doesn't like the fact that his ideas are not in favor, then he has to live with that. This is one of his attitude problems that I stated some time ago, where he has a history on his talk page of having a disrespectful attitude towards many users. I don't want to be a crybaby, but I've said this before and I'll say this again: the only way that we can get along here is by assuming good faith towards other users, protecting and respecting each other and not bullying with guidelines and other nonsense. If NE2 has a proposal and his idea gets turned down, he has to live with the fact that he has been outvoted, should move on and not feed the fire. This goes for everyone else. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one whose ideas were "turned down", both at the Wikipedia-wide level and at the local project level. --NE2 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reality check, you insignificant jerk. You're the one who has disrupted the project ever since you came, okay? You caused a lot of trouble, and I will prove it. Here's a list:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#What to do with Template:NYC simplebus: You first stirred up trouble with Alphachimp with the bus template.
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#Category:New York City Subway transfer-points is listed for deletion: He requested a category I created for deletion while a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#Station complexes was taking place.
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#Template:NYCS: He requested several templates for deletion, used to link to organization pages, such as the LIRR an the Metro-North. Did he bother to ask if it was okay, or even request input? No.
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#Service History Edits: He removed a lot of information from the train service articles. He could have rewrote the section to fix the copyright violation, but no: he removed the whole section.
5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 5#To bold or not to bold?: Pacific Coast Highway questioned NE2's edits to Template:NYCS, where he removed the boldface. Sure, he should have requested input to see if it was okay, but no, he went ahead and made the change.
6. User talk:NE2/Archive 5#Seek consensus please.: I posted a discussion on why he removed the borough parameter and removed two sections, the station information and other information sections, which I reverted.
7. on March 24, I was blocked from editing for 10 hours because of this edit, where i reverted NE2's use of redirects.
8. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#Imdanumber1's mass revert of station moves: NE2 moved a lot of subway station articles to reflect station signage. I reverted, and he moved them back. This resulted in a two to three long week discussion that eventually died out and never popped up again. I eventually moved the articles back and left it at that.
9. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#42nd Street–Fifth Avenue–Bryant Park (New York City Subway). NE2 split up the article unilaterally, saying the name was made up.
10. On April 27, 2007, NE2 moved several articles, where he was supposed to replace the en dash with the hyphen, but removed the suffix. He brought the issue up a few days later at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 6#Are the acronyms (IND/BMT/IRT) necessary?, and no one agreed. The articles remained until now.
11. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7#Station suffixes (e.g. (IRT/BMT/IND Line name)): Same as above.
12. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7#Station naming, again: This is where I got really annoyed, because he insisted on common names where he was wrong. Marc and TLK stated their opinions regarding this issue.

I don't believe this will end anytime soon. You see the issues brought up above? They all come back to NE2. Marc, you said NE2 isn't a troll, but see above. These issues will let everyone know all the trouble he has caused because he shows very high signs of trollish behavior. He drives people away by the way he approaches other Wikipedians. This is probably one of the reasons why Alphachimp hasn't been in recent action around here. Well guess what? NE2 may have gotten on my nerves, and because of this, I had plans of leaving because he got me blocked and left irrelevant personal criticism commenting on my RFA. But I will not give into his actions. If he has to be forced to learn how to determine consensus and stop ranting about like he owns the place, so be it, that's what he signed up for. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this discussion ended up on this page. But anyhow, I think NE2 is a highly energetic editor, who has mixed some extremely good ideas with some highly disruptive ones and harmful ones, the latter often implemented with little-to-no consensus. Marc Shepherd 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc, you don't know NE2 as well as I do. If you looked at the above, you'll see all the trouble he stirred up. If he has an opinion that can be considered as an improvement, he should say so, have a discussion, see what everyone else thinks. He doesn't listen to anyone. That is why a lot of people have trouble working with him. Just check his talk page archives. And you're right, most of his edits and implementations reflected hardly any sort of consensus, if any at all. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the disambiguation RDR at the top of the page to comport with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_7#BMT service article name changes.

If any further improvements are desired, please edit the page in the normal way, and make each change in a thoughtful way. Repeatedly reverting and re-reverting each other's edits will simply lead to the page being protected again, and could easily result in sanctions for either or both of the offending parties. Marc Shepherd 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, Marc. But if NE2 doesn't correct his behavior soon, he ill get blocked, I don't care how, though. He has a history of bad behavior on his talk page archive and he is a real jerk. He doesn't care about other people, he shows no remorse, and he thinks he owns the place. That is unacceptable.

As for you Marc, I am glad we have Wikipedians like you that people can trust and respect. NE2 won't get any respect for his trollish behavior, and I have proof. Check his talk page archives. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 12:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, NE2 is really getting of my nerves, but I don't think you can block him just because you disagree with his edits. Otherwise, I would have been blocked for my angry edit summaries against those vandals, who are even worse. The Legendary Ranger 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. A good article review is taking place at Wikipedia:Good article review#1 (New York City Subway service). All are invited to discuss at the nomination page. Thank you. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the review has just failed. Part of the problem may be that you made the proposal in the wrong forum. You submitted it to Wikipedia:Good article review, which is the place for: A) Good Articles that no longer merit that status; and, B) Articles wrongly denied Good Article status. This would have been the place to go if you thought the original denial was wrong.

But that wasn't the situation here. Instead, you accepted the original reviewers' comments as valid, and tried to improve the article. At that point, the next step would be to renominate the article for a fresh Good Article review, based on changes made since the last time it was proposed and failed.

Personally, I am doubtful that the renomination would succeed. The article has been proposed twice—four months ago, and two months ago. It hasn't really changed all that much since the last GA review, about two months ago. Any GA reviewer is going to be immediately suspicious when so little time has gone by. Although I am disqualified as a reviewer, I don't think it will pass.

I would recommend asking either of the two reviewers who "failed" it last time whether they think it's a reasonable candidate now. Marc Shepherd 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Good idea. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stumbled across these rollsigns and route number images at WikiCommons New York City Subway rollsigns, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or not, sorry if it isn't.

Alot of these appear to be gif bitmaps, when vector based images would serve a better purpose. As I have had an attempt at doing some myself that hasn't been entirely fruitful, I have since found out that Inkscape has a handy trace tool and would assume that this would make the task alot more straight forward to do. I'm just looking to see if others feel this is required & if these new versions would be an acceptable replacement to the exisiting ones. Following is an example of what I am proposing.

Thanks Rfsjim (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Keep the file name the same like the .GIF counterpart and see what you can do for the others. But bring up the suggestion to WT:NYCPT and see what the other members of the project think of the idea, as this article is within the WP:NYCPT scope. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 04:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user named "The Legendary Ranger" removed content on this wikipage and that of the F Train stating that a number of peak trains terminate at terminals other than the regular terminals (at 137th Street instead of 242th Street and at Kings Highway instead of Coney Island, respectively). I understand that other lines have a similar situation (and I would certainly add that info to those articles later), but that fact does not make this "not notable", as was stated by in the comments section of the edit. A peak hour change of terminals that makes the line significantly shorter is certainly "notable" for the riders of the lines affected. A peak hour shortening of many trains on the line is no less notable than a peak hour extension of a line to a further terminal - yet, such peak hour extensions are mentioned in the wikiarticles of many lines such as for the B train (to Bedford Park), the A (to Rockaway Park), and the 5 (to Dyre Avenue). Also, please note that these peak hour shortening terminal changes are official and documented because they are on the official MTA timetables (see the links on the page) and are on the signs on the trains. Thus they are verifiable facts. They should not be removed without proper reason.

I welcome constructive commentary on this. I will put both statements back into the articles after a period of time if no proper reason is given for their removal. Thank you very much.

72.80.208.20 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Good morning. I am the same user as 72.80.208.20. It appears that the consensus is that the "Connections" column is the best location to enter the peak hour terminal changes. I have now entered all peak hour route shortenings that occur more than 2 or 3 times daily - except for the L train and the 2 train, whose pages are both currently locked. I have avoided entering the truly rare cases that occur only 2 or 3 or even once daily (such as for the D train at 145th street instead of at 206th street - there is only 1 such train daily that starts at there and only 2 that terminate there daily). I hope that this is a reasonable approach. As always, constructive comments and suggestions are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.190.102 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 1 operates a set of R62s, I believe that there should probably be a picture of that train operating on the 1. I mean, it's just my opinion, but I believe there should be at least one picture of all of the car models that each route operates. Does anyone agree? And if you are a photographer, could you upload a picture of that train and place it on this article? PS: Use Wikimedia Commons to upload. It's literally the easiest way to upload files.

--Davidng913 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1 (New York City Subway service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160825164246/http://gothamist.com/2005/05/25/the_number_9_trains_final_days.php to http://gothamist.com/2005/05/25/the_number_9_trains_final_days.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:1 (New York City Subway service)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Will begin review shortly. :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The 1 operates at all times" - change to "The line currently operates 24-hours a day"

Done

• Real question because I don't know: Is "In 1918, the modern IRT "H" system was introduced and the earlier trunk line service was discontinued" related to 1 subway line?

Removed. Not that important

I would like to get Kew Gardens 613's perspective on this. He helped make the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line article to a good article, and the 1 train runs along the entirety of the line. The modern H system that is being referred to, was what created the Bway-7th Ave Line. However, the 1 train's history is vastly different as it refers to the service pattern that runs over the line. epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to go to bed so I can get to school early to get work done tomorrow. I should have some time to look at this tomorrow. Epicgenius is correct that the history of the 1 is very different from the history of the line. There is a lot more about its history in the 1920s and 1930s that needs to be added to this article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if mentioning something in the lead about how 9/11 disrupted the operation of the 1 line is notable enough to include. Thoughts?

Added a bit. I agree it is notable.

• There doesn't seem to be much discussion about the construction process of the subway or the planning of it (what were the motivations behind building this subway line?).

If you view any other subway line, the construction process is usually omitted. The motivation was that the line was on the first subway route. It was build for the first generation of the NY subway.

The actual reason is that this is not a subway "line", i.e. actual infrastructure, but a subway "service", i.e. the train which runs over the line. As per New York City Subway nomenclature. I think Kew Gardens 613 may know more about this, but he is not online today. epicgenius (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "When the first subway opened between 1904 and 1908..." - First subway in the world, US, North America, IRT? Make it clear what "first subway" is referring to.

Done

• Could we maybe split the first sentence of the third paragraph into two sentences?

Done

• "Late night service was not operated" - There isn't really any context regarding this sentence...or it is just written poorly. Maybe moving this sentence to the end of the paragraph and changing it to "No trains operated for late night service"

Done

• Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 can all be merged into a single paragraph.

Done

• "Beginning on May 10, 1946, all 1 Brooklyn trains" - So far the article has used the terms "1 Local", "1 Express", and "1". I understand what local and express mean but what does Brooklyn mean? Is it the equivalent to "1"?
• "Previously all 1 trains ran local from 12:30 to 5:30 am..." - Providing the exact operation times seems a little too detailed. I don't think we need them.

Wouldn't removing the times make it not an accurate statement? AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "On June 12, 1949, 137th Street to South Ferry Sunday locals were discontinued..." - "On June 12, 1949, 137th Street to South Ferry Sunday local trains were discontinued..."

Done

• "On March 15, 1954, weekend 137th Street to South Ferry locals were discontinued" - "On March 15, 1954, weekend 137th Street to South Ferry local trains were once again discontinued..."

Done

• "...when alternate rush trains ran express between..." - "...when alternate rush hour trains ran express between..."

Done

• "This proved unsuccessful..." - Why?
  • @Kew Gardens 613: epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "...weekday trains were rerouted to Flatbush Avenue and evening 137th Street to South Ferry locals were discontinued." - "...weekday trains were rerouted to Flatbush Avenue and evening 137th Street to South Ferry local trains were discontinued."

Done

Will continue later.--Dom497 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: Thank you for taking this on. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Hey. Life's gotten busy for the next few days. I'll get back to this review next week. Sorry.--Dom497 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm going to have to back out the review. I won't be able to complete it. I've reset the GAN template on the talk page so the bot should put it the nomination back in the correct location within the backlog.--Dom497 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: I am sorry to hear that. However, preferably you should have requested for a second opinion instead. This pushes the nomination back into the backlog. It is fine with what you did though. Hope everything is ok. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:1 (New York City Subway service)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This my first time review, comments to follow - I've been reading the article but there are grammar and sentences that needs to be fixed. :)-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

8. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Hello @AmericanAir88:, I am concerned with this nomination which you have selected because apparently there's a copyright violation. So I would consider is fail this nomation.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Happypillsjr: That is a reverse copyright violation, the other site takes from Wikipedia. I believe we should put this back in the queue so another reviewer can look at this article. Even if you don't fail this article over this, it would probably benefit from having a more experienced set of eyes, with all due respect. epicgenius (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Okay, understood! I think could put that on hold for now.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 04:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Happypillsjr: The purpose of putting a GAR on hold is to allow the nominator time to address the issues you have raised. In this particular case, the only issue you have raised is unactionable; that is, there is no copyright violation and therefore nothing for the nominator to actually do. Please either pass the review or pass it over to a more experineced reviewer. Cheers! ——SN54129 12:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:, give me few things to do is to re-check the article and that's all.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 12:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no evidence of a copyright violation then it is best that I can pass this nomination.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after a request by Epicgenius, I've come to offer some comments - I've previously reviewed other articles for GA by the main editors, so I think we can work productively on this! Pinging @AmericanAir88, BlueMoonset, Epicgenius, and Kew Gardens 613: Kingsif (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Serial Number 54129: Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory ping to @Epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613, and AmericanAir88: since it's been a few weeks. Do you want to keep this on hold for longer? Kingsif (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Yes please. My user page should explain my limited editing lately. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Of course man :) Kingsif (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style

• Article title isn't in the first paragraph of the lead, is there room for a "commonly known as the 1" at the start?
• Good use of wikilinks in lead
  • Could also link WTC Cortlandt station
• The sentence There was both local and express service with express trains using the express tracks south of 96th Street. is a bit cumbersome; it is possible to expand this into more, shorter, sentences for readability?

  Fixed.

• Was the turn-around mentioned at the end of the first paragraph of Early service an interchange or not? Not necessary, but could be interesting :)

  It was an actual loop. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "two-halves" should be two words, not hyphenated

  Done.

• Are all the bolded titles redirects to this article? I'd recommend making them for searchability
• Could there be a wikilink to an appropriate New Lots Avenue article?

  Done.

  • More wikilinks could be introduced throughout the article in general, to similar things

  Done.

• I'm not sure if the info on late night trains is conflicting? ...242nd Street to between New Lots and Flatbush Avenues late nights. No trains operated for late night service - could this be explained better?
  • The following paragraphs also mention cutting night service, but then turning the local trains into all late night trains? Will ask for explanation in coverage notes below :)

    I removed this part, since it's both unsourced and conflicts with sourced information. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A very big number ($100,000,000) is used; 100 million, could this be written out?

  Done.

• Mention of General Orders in West Side improvement subsection needs explanation or link

  Done.

• Should ...run between 242nd Street and South Ferry all times be "at all times" or is just "all times" common use for the topic?

  Fixed.

• R21s and 22s aren't well established, it's kind of obvious but could still say that they're types of car

  Done.

• Comparative to the previous subsections in service history, 'Skip stop, 9/11, and recent changes' is really long - could it be split somehow?
  • Maybe skip stops could have their own subsection, with 9/11 and after in another?

    Done.

• I've made the line numbers in this part bold, to match earlier - if wrong, please undo :)

  No, you are correct. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that the sentence As part of the study that resulted in the skip-stop plan, the NYCTA studied using the center track for express service, but settled on skip-stop service because the center track does not extend for the whole line. could be written better, perhaps expanded?

  I tried to resolve it. @Kew Gardens 613: When you are free, can you check to see if this is right? However, the agency settled on skip-stop service because the center track existed in two discontinuous segments, which would require complicated track-switching maneuvers to accommodate the express trains. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Could Most passengers would not have to wait longer for a train because, previously, a third of 1 trains had terminated at 137th Street be explained - the relationship between not waiting longer and different train routes could be better explained.

  Done.

• Two notes on The previous headway for stations north of there ... - headway can be wikilinked and 'there' is a little informal - I see it as referring to 137th Street, but 'this station' would be more wikistyle
  • Yes, I feel these two sentences could be rewritten for clarity, though all the info is there

  Removed "headway" as a jargon, and spelled out 137th Street directly. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting these comments but will continue
• On July 1988, it was announced that 1/9 skip-stop service would begin... - shouldn't it be In July ... that the 1/9...?

  Done.

• The sentence about Inwood and Washington Heights residents not liking skip-stop seems tacked on - it doesn't flow well. Additionally, it doesn't really say whether they were opposed before the community outreach or after (or both).

  Fixed.

• I don't think the "center express track" has been mentioned before the fourth skip-stop paragraph, so its not clear where this comes in. Is there information about this track being express pre-skip stop? Or some contextual information that could be added here?

  Well, this info is mostly explained in the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line article. However, it should be repeated in the 1-train article as well. I may do this later. epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This fourth paragraph (A public hearing on the NYCTA's plan...) is also very bulky and could be broken up; especially with things like the analysis before 1988, this could be put earlier. I also think some of the information in the first half of it is a repeat of things that have been said before, but rephrased and mashed together. This paragraph is probably the weakest writing style-wise, too.

  @Kew Gardens 613: Can you resolve this? epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Epicgenius: Somehow I missed this. When I have some time I will try to address this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is skip-stop only wikilinked at the end of its section?
  • Done.
• There are some verbatim repeats in the last few skip-stop paragraphs.
  • @Kingsif: Can you see if this was fixed? Otherwise, could you clarify? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The start of the 9/11 etc. subsection could be rewritten, separating and clarifying why it was rerouted and where it was rerouted.
  • Some of the phrase choices are weak, e.g. When that was cleared by September 17... is a grammatical anomaly.
• Will add more, again, but looks like it's currently being worked on Kingsif (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In 9/11 and recovery - the first paragraph is good content-wise, but rewriting needed per above.
  • Done.
• The second paragraph should probably mention that debris cleared/recovery completed as why the service resumed. Could also wikilink the new Cortlandt station at the end.
  • Done.
• Third paragraph here similar to the first. The main specific I can think of is the awkward phrasing again: New York City Transit was considering eliminating 9 and skip-stop service due to long wait times, and as a result of a decrease in the number of riders benefiting - surely the longer wait time is why fewer people benefited, but it's a run-on with a structure that's hard to follow
  • Done.
• It not entirely sure is It planned on making a decision in the summer is needed, but it can be kept with the sentence written to flow better
  • Removed.
• Last sentence of the last paragraph here needs to distinguish between the old loop station and the new South Ferry one.
  • Done.
• Given that there's only the one line, I'm not sure the service pattern table is needed. If standard to these articles, fine to include, but otherwise the information can be presented just as well in prose.
  • I am considering rearranging it. There are some sections with only two tracks so "local" is not an option. epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs work

Coverage

• Could you explain here all about the late night trains? It may be because it's split across paragraphs, but I think the coverage of the late night services could be better. I'm a bit confused at the moment (I can follow the info on alternating trains fine, but feel it may benefit from some copyedit).
  • Unlike most subway systems around the world, the NYC Subway operates 24/7. Late nights is from 12 am to 5:30 am. The 1 train alternated between either of two Brooklyn terminals. epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to say that I'm glad you've included the little fact about skipping stations at 15mph - it's useful and I appreciate the inclusion :)
  • No problem.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to provide good coverage, I can't think of anything else not included
• Doesn't stray
• Question - pass except the late night confusion

Illustration

• Good use of tables and images
• Infobox suffices
• Nice detailed route map with label key in box
• All images commons or PD, correctly tagged
• Pass

Neutrality

• Reads neutrally
• Pass

Stability

• Expansion in September
• Clear history
• Pass

Verifiability

• Consistent refs
• Notes used for station table good
• There's four cn tags; I personally don't think the first one is warranted, but will check the rest against current sources
  • @Kingsif and Epicgenius: I will try once again, when I have time, to find sources to deal with these cn tags.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Otherwise well cited throughout
• Working

Copyright

• Already done, this is all good :) Kingsif (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

• Okay, that's all my comments, I'd be happy to discuss individual points further :) Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kingsif, sorry, I forgot about this article. I think Kew Gardens 613 may be better able to provide the missing citations, since he has access to materials that I do not. epicgenius (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kingsif and Epicgenius: I will try to find citations for some of these, but have had trouble finding citations for the dates from the 1920s through 1940s.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613, where does this stand? It's been over a month and a half since the most recent posts here; have the citation issues been addressed? (There are still three "citation needed" tags, all of which involve the 1950s (one starts in 1949). Are there any others outstanding? Can we get this wrapped up soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, sorry about this. I was busy with the WikiCup and school work, and forgot to address these points. I'm not sure what the status is regarding the citation needed tags, but there may still be some coverage gaps. epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I might give it another week, circumstances always pushed it back but it can always be nominated when the various editors have more time. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Kingsif: I have been very busy with schoolwork, so I have not been able to do much Wikipedia editing, but will try to find some time to address the remaining outstanding issues with the article. Thanks for following up on this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: Great, ping me when you're done! Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close (and fail) this for now, since there hasn't been significant work in a few weeks, and none at all in 10 days. However, all that I feel is left to be resolved are a few heavy paragraphs and some missing citations. It's otherwise a nice article. So, this is a fail without prejudice, in part to give the nominator(s) some pressure-free time to work on it, and I'll be happy to revisit when it gets put up for GAN again (hopefully soon!) @Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: If you want any help, let me know :) Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would not have promoted this article to GA status as there are still several {{citation needed}} tags on this page. I may get to these tomorrow. @Kew Gardens 613: Would you have time to resolve these tags after your finals? epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: and @Kew Gardens 613:. I have no idea how this passed. I have not been able to tend to the issues as I am currently mourning a sudden death that occurred in my family. Even before that, I had a "busy" tag on my talk page as other off-wiki things were occurring. @BlueMoonset: What do you think about Happypills review? We have worked with the user in the past and they have some troubling history with GA. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanAir88, I'm so very sorry for your loss. To answer your query, I do not understand how an article with any "citation needed" templates, much less four of them, could be passed as a GA; by definition, it does not meet the verifiability criteria listed in the Good Article criteria. I also don't think sufficient attention has been paid to the text. There are inconsistencies in how the train numbering is treated: mostly bold, but sometimes regular roman. The links to other routes are done in a haphazard fashion, rather than first usage. These should have been noted in a review as well. In terms of clarity and the 3b criteria (not going into unnecessary detail), I would have suggested reorganizing and condensing in the skip-stop paragraphs so that the goals were stated in the first paragraph rather than relegated to the fourth, and the material trimmed of some of the details, which were also somewhat repetitive over the many paragraphs. Aside from that, there's at least one contraction that should have been fixed, and some jargon that won't be understood by people unfamiliar with subway systems (for example, running on 12-minute headways); these all should have been noted in a review so they could have been dealt with. I always worry when the reviewer finds not a single typo or similar issue (unless I see they've done minor fixes themselves): an article without a single spelling or grammatical error is a rare bird indeed. So I think it's a good thing that the review has been reopened, and a more experienced reviewer will be checking things over. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: My condolences for your loss, and I hope everything gets better. In the meantime, Kew Gardens and I am both very busy throughout this week, but I might be able to tackle some of the issues that BlueMoonset and Kingsif have pointed out. These second opinions are much appreciated. epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: I am so sorry about your loss. Like Epicgenius said, I am very busy at the moment. Once I get the work out of the way, I will tend to this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Having just read this section, I will also share my condolences. Take whatever time you need for this. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I just realized that I have made an error for dozens of articles, having accidentally put the NY Times' ISSN in Daily News citations. According to WorldCat, it doesn't have an ISSN. Do you know if there is some way to determine all the articles that have this error so they can be fixed? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: Do you remember if you put NY Daily News ISSNs with the nydailynews.com citations, newspapers.com citations, or both? In either case, we can search for "Daily News" and the ISSN 0362-4331, though this is not a foolproof method. epicgenius (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]