Jump to content

Talk:191st Street station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 191st Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:163rd Street–Amsterdam Avenue (IND Eighth Avenue Line) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 191st Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). 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:

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) 17:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 191st Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line). 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:

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) 04:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:191st Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Truflip99 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

[edit]

History

[edit]

Construction

[edit]
Station
[edit]
  • ce: "...was extended northward from 157th Street to a temporary terminus on 221st Street and Broadway on March 12, 1906" -- and comma after date
    •  Done
  • ce: "between the 181st Street and Dyckman Street stations, which became overcrowded."
    •  Done
  • "Engineers found that the construction of a station was feasible since the subway platforms would be on almost the same level as Broadway." -- Why was being on the "same level" feasible?
    •  Pending
      • @Truflip99: It wasn't that being on the same level was feasible, but that the construction of the tunnel, I will correct it from station, was feasible-since they were on about the same level, the grade was low enough for people to use. Is this clear? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be the second paragraph:
The opening of the station was expected to spur development in the Fort George area prior to the station's opening. Its original sponsor was David Stewart. The construction of the station had been pushed for by Stewart and other property owners seeking better accessibility to their land. Following the announcement for the station's construction, and prior to the start of construction, interest in nearby real estate increased, having been nonexistent in the last two years.
  •  Done
  • "The station had not been deemed necessary as this area of Manhattan was less densely populated, and it was thought that there was need to have stations located as closely together as they were downtown." -- this sentence is contradictory. It also negates the paragraph above.
  • This should be the third paragraph:
Work on the construction of the station began on July 20, 1909. Preliminary work on the new shafts started on August 18, 1909(comma) after legal and engineering difficulties were straightened out in the previous months. Preliminary work involved the clearing of a site in a vacant lot south of 191st Street on the west side of St. Nicholas Avenue for a 177-foot-deep (54 m) shaft to accommodate four elevators and a steel emergency staircase from the surface to platform level. The four elevator wells were located in the four corners of the main shaft with the staircase located between them. The emergency staircase, along with those at the 168th Street and 181st Street stations, which were also mainly accessed by elevators, was used for the first time on March 23, 1914 after the elevators stopped working due to a problem at the Dyckman power station. The use of the staircase resulted in extreme congestion.

 Done

  • Preliminary work on the new shafts started on August 18, 1909 -- elaborate on or wikilink "shafts" (to differentiate it from your use of elevator shafts as well) and move the ref to end of sentence
    •  Done
  • after legal and engineering difficulties were straightened out in the previous months. -- you should expand upon this
  • ce: "Construction of the station proved difficult as it required the sinking of a shaft and the widening of the tunnel bore on both sides to accommodate the platforms; this was accomplished without interrupting subway service."
    •  Done
  • Blasting for the station was limited to midnight to 5 a.m.. -- why?
  • ce: "The station platforms were designed to be 480 feet (150 m) to accommodate 10-car express trains."
    •  Done
  • "Originally, part of the old tunnel arch was going to be used for the station roof. However, the discovery of a mud seam and the development of cracks in the roof made it necessary to build a flat roof over the tracks, filling in the space between the roofs with concrete." -- roof, do you mean ceiling?
    •  Done

(pausing here) --Truflip99 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian tunnel
[edit]
  • Along with the construction of the station, a 1,000-foot-long (300 m) tunnel was built to connect the station at 191st Street and St. Nicholas Avenue with Broadway, 59 feet (18 m) west of Fairview Avenue. -- the convert tp does not work with double adjectives (e.g. 1-foot-long, 5-foot-wide). Needs to be typed manually.
  • The cost was levied on the neighborhood's property owners at their request. The tunnel street cost $76,000, of which the IRT provided $5,000. -- these are redundant on "cost" and can be merged.
  • The title to an easement required for its construction was acquired in a proceeding under a provision of the City Charter, not under the terms of the Rapid Transit Act. -- wikilink easement and provide brief explanation as to why this was necessary; also considering moving it to the beginning of the third paragraph
  • 1,900 feet (580 m)-long --> 1,900-foot-long
  • Three entrances to the tunnel were proposed, one at Broadway, one at Fort Washington Avenue with two elevators, and one at Riverside Drive, three at grade. -- I'm not understanding the "three at grade" part of this sentence
  • clarify: In June 1910, the local board of directors sent a resolution calling for the construction of the street tunnel to the New York City Board of Estimate (NYCBOE).
  • better word: At the time, funding had been acquired for slightly more than half of the length of the tunnel, with the remainder expected to be secured by easements.
  • The NYCBOE approved the petition for the improvement and agreed to hold a public hearing on December 29. -- add year
  • ce: In January 1911, Construction was expected to begin in the summer of 1911.
    • @Truflip99: I changed it to as of January 1911. The month needs to be included to show that the timeline for the project slipped. What is the problem with this sentence? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kew Gardens 613 I most certainly acknowledge the need to maintain a straightforward timeline (although it's not necessarily a requirement for storytelling), but in the case where "On [date], it was predicted that [event] would happen on [date]," where both [dates] have already happened, it would be more straightforward to just say that the [event] (actually) took place on [this date]. Its equivalent to saying "In 1937, WWII was expected to start in 1938 with the invasion of Poland. Germany did it in 1939." If there is an absolute need to convey that the predictions were off, then I would support the formatting if it included an explanatory interjection: "... but construction actually started on [date] because..." Hopefully that makes sense. As it stands, all of these dates are kind of hard to follow, especially for someone unfamiliar with NY Subway history. Wikipedia is meant to be a bit more concise to cater to more casual readers. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Pending
          • @Truflip99: Most people familiar with NY Subway history would no next to nothing on the subject of the tunnel. I have generally included things like this because they show that there was a slip in the schedule. Upon further research, I might be able to find out why there was delay. I am pinging @Epicgenius: to see what he thinks about this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            Kew Gardens 613, I'm inclined to think that if the delay was minor (less than six months), no explanation would be needed for the delay, since it is pretty trivial. However, any more than that might warrant an explanation. In any case, the reason for the delay doesn't have to be that long, because it's a very minor detail in regards to this article. epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company was given a year to finish the work, but expected to complete it in nine months. In October 1911, construction of the tunnel was expected to be completed on April 1, 1912. -- these sentences can be merged.
    • @Truflip99: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Despite the fact that the company gave different construction timelines to the same newspaper, one day after the other, is odd. In the first article from October 4, it said that the work would be completed about April 1, which was sixth months away. The article from October 5 said that it would take nine months, which would bring it to July. I am not sure what to do with this discrepancy. Any thoughts? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have this be its own paragraph: In December 1911, the local Board of Improvements authorized plans to extend the tunnel west at grade across Broadway and Bennett Avenue and then in a tunnel to a point underneath Fort Washington Avenue, the highest point in Manhattan, from where elevators would take passengers to the surface. In April 1913, it was expected to be extended at a later date.(this provides no additional information, move the ref to the next sentence) An extension of the tunnel was expected to quickly develop that area. As such an extension was discussed, and questions were raised concerning which agency would operate the elevators.

(pausing here, sorry been a bit busy past few days) --Truflip99 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opening and early years

[edit]

Mid-20th century

[edit]
  • ce: Unlike the other stations being extended on the line, the 191st Street station already platformed 10-car trains. However, because it was only 480 feet (150 m), not all doors would open at the station. On April 6, 1948, the platform extension project opened for stations from 103rd Street to Dyckman Street, with the exception of 125th Street.
  • ce: Five deep stations in Washington Heights, including the 191st Street station, were considered ideal for use as bomb-proof shelters.

(pausing, have to head home) --Truflip99 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator operators

[edit]

Station layout

[edit]
  • redundant: As part of the MTA's Arts for Transit Program, $88,360 was allocated for the installation and creation of a mosaic tile piece of art titled Primavera by Raul Colon as part of the station's 2003 renovation.

Exits

[edit]
  • ce: The elevators to the mezzanine still utilize elevator operators, and the station is one of the few in the system to do so.
  • The station is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and thus cannot be used by patrons with wheelchairs, because access from the fare control area to the platforms is only possible via stairways. -- move this sentence at the end of the paragraph
  • ce: The other entrance/exit, at 190th Street and Broadway west of the station, is located at a hillside and is accessed via a three-block long passageway, which passes under Wadsworth Terrace and Avenue.

Since I'm at work on this slow, post-4th day, I hope to get this finished today. Hope you had a great 4th, and are one of the many who didn't have to commute today. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passageway

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Will do a final read through ones these are resolved. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

[edit]

Thanks for your patience with this review. I'm very meticulous (which may be apparent from how I continue to edit articles you've turned GA); I hope that doesn't discourage you from working with me. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
@Truflip99: Why did I get a message saying that you failed the nomination? I was planning to address the points I have not addressed soon. I am working part-time three days per week so I have less time. You have not even fully reviewed the article, so I do not think it is fair to fail it. I typically move from the easiest things to address to the most time-consuming. If you had given additional things for me to address, I would have definitely addressed some of those in this time. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kew Gardens 613, looking at the history, I can't find where they failed it, so I imagine it resulted from the move. If you want you could raise an issue with Legobot about it. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld: That is what I was guessing. How would I raise an issue with Legobot about it?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kew Gardens 613, looking, it isn't clear. You could try [1] or User talk:Legobot. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kew Gardens 613, I hadn't messed with this under the assumption that you were indeed busy. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: Thanks for understanding. I am working part-time doing research on transit, and hadn't had the time. I finished the second of two projects I was working on and suddenly have nothing to do at the moment, so I went ahead and responded to the comments I had not addressed. Thanks so much for taking this up and for being patient.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: I've thrown in a few pending TPs that I'd like you to address. Sorry I hadn't pinged you, I assumed you would have checked your watchlist (or perhaps you've been busy..) I'm also going to request a copy edit from WP:GOCE, since I'm not fully satisfied with my suggestions and I tend to go back and forth on my copy edits--which I don't want to have to suffer through. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: I have been busy, so I have been doing the easier things here I do check my watchlist. No problem on not pinging me. I will check this again what I get home. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: Would you mind if we wait for the GOCE review, or would you rather we move forward? --Truflip99 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I disagree with the copyedits that added the wikilinks for every Times article and the change from "served by the 1 at all times." Do you agree with me? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kew Gardens 613, I agree that wikilinking the Times at every instance is unnecessary. At most, only the first instance should be linked. Personally I don't link newspaper names in citations (at least while using Visual Editor), but that's just my preference. epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Same here. What do you think we should do then?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kew Gardens 613, I suppose, remove the links to the Times except in the first citation. epicgenius (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kew Gardens 613 sorry about that :\ --Truflip99 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

@Truflip99: Thanks for reviewing this, but you didn't follow the proper protocol, which is why I didn't get a message on my talk page. You are not supposed to add the GA icon manually. See Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Passing, which states:

If you determine that the article meets the good article criteria, you may pass it by doing the following:

  1. Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}
  2. The five tildes supply the date of the review. Fill in the |topic= and |page= number of the review by copying both parameter values from the replaced template. (The topic parameter refers to the topic values found here; the template automatically converts GA nominee subtopics into GA topics. The page parameter should be the number of the review subpage; that is, the n in {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} – a number only; no letters.)
  3. Update any {{WikiProject}} templates on the article talk page by changing the |class= parameter value to "GA", as in {{WikiProject|...|class=GA}}
  4. Save the page. A bot will add the good article icon to the article, will remove the nomination from the GA nominations page, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article has passed.[a] Do not add the icon manually.
  5. Be sure the review page justifies how the article meets the good article criteria. You may also leave a personal note of congratulations for the nominator.
  6. List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section and update the tally at the bottom of that section.

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I definitely thought I did though, considering I looked up those same instructions when I did it. Also, it's not my first time upgrading an article to GA. I was actually waiting for the bot to do something, but it just never did. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator operator lawsuit

[edit]

@Kew Gardens 613, thanks for adding the update about the elevator operator lawsuit. The source makes it sound like the August 4 ruling was an injunction, not a final decision (Ordered that respondent remains enjoined and restrained from removing, terminating, eliminating, replacing, reassigning NYC Transit Authority employees from presently operating the elevators). I had seen it earlier but wasn't sure if an injunction was noteworthy enough to mention. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I think it would be notable that the MTA was enjoined, but as this news story plays out, maybe it becomes less relevant. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:191st_Street_station&oldid=1195919199"