Jump to content

Talk:63rd Street Tunnel

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 63rd Street Tunnel. 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) 06:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:63rd Street Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 12:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Upon a random check it seems this article has many dead references. For example, #14, #38, #54, and #84 (this isn't a full list; there may be more). I'll give the author 7 days to go through all the sources to make sure they are all in working order before I continue with a full review.--Dom497 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: Thanks for taking up the review. I added archives to all of the references. epicgenius (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

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:


Comments

[edit]
  • The second paragraph in the lead seems to focus on the construction/opening of the tunnel. However, the first sentence specifies what the purpose of the upper deck is.
  • "following the expected completion of the East Side Access project in 2022 or 2023" - "ollowing the expected completion of the East Side Access project by 2023"
    • Fixed.
  • Within the first few sentences of the "Planning" section, each sentence starts with a date. This is more of a personal opinion than a GA requirement but I think some of the sentences could be restructured to avoid having all the sentences start with a date (which I think would help improve the flow).
    • Fixed anyway.
  • "A third track was added...", and then the next sentence starts with "A fourth track was added..." - Same comment as my previous bullet point, or you could combine these sentences into one.
  • Just finished reading the Planning section. So is the lower deck being used right now? The lead implies the lower deck isn't be used until 2023. If the lower deck isn't be used, I think it would be good to provide some context in the lead why the lower deck is finally entering service in 2023.
    • Done.
  • "One section of the tunnel was controversial because it called for 1,500 feet (460 m) of cut-and-cover tunneling. which required digging an open trench through Central Park in Manhattan" - I believe the period should be a comma and I would also suggest a minor reword: "One section of the tunnel was controversial because it called for 1,500 feet (460 m) of cut-and-cover tunneling, which would require digging an open trench through Central Park".
    • Done.
  • "The NYCTA agreed to halve the width of the proposed 75-foot (23 m)-wide cut, which halved the area of affected parkland" - Not a huge fan of repeating the word "halved". Maybe something like this would be better: "The NYCTA agreed to halve the width of the proposed 75-foot (23 m)-wide cut, which decreased the area of affected parkland proportionally".
    • Done.
  • I know no article exists but is "Heckscher Playground" significant enough to have a red-link?
    • Yes, it is Central Park's largest playground.
  • "The NYCTA also agreed to reduce disruption to the Heckscher Playground, located above the proposed subway tunnel's path, by cutting construction time from three years to two years and by constructing a temporary playground nearby" - How did they manage to cut construction by a year?
  • "In March, the NYCTA again sought construction bids" - IMO, not really a useful sentence since the following sentence aren't really related in a direct way.
    • Removed.
  • "and the Long Island Rail Road extension through the lower level of the 63rd Street tunnel was canceled for the foreseeable future" - I think this is the context that is missing in the lead.
    • Fixed.
  • "By January 1976, the tunnel was 95% complete." - Can we try to merge this sentence with the sentence that follows after?
    • Done.
  • "The main cause of the delay was the 5.8-mile "super express" in Queens" - What is a "super express"?
    • Added a link.
  • "In May 1978, the Times noted..." - The New York Times? However, I don't think this sentence adds any value to the article and could be removed.
    • Removed that last sentence.
  • "..."even though "officials knew that the tunnel would never be used."" - Quotes aren't needed
    • Rephrased.
  • "Richard Ravitch, the MTA chairman, said that to stop the work was impossible or so costly as to make it impractical subsequent to the construction of the subway portion." - There is an extra quotation mark at the end that can be removed; however, can we also reword this sentence to something like: "Richard Ravitch, the MTA chairman, said that stopping construction would be so costly as to make it impractical subsequent to the construction of the subway portion." (it's never impossible to stop construction)
  • "On February 6, 1987, the MTA approved a new plan to have the tunnel open to 21st Street/Queensbridge by October 1989" - Can we not start this sentence with a date? Much of the article is reading like a bullet point list.
    • Fixed.

Review to continue later. Feel free to ask for clarification for any of my points. --Dom497 (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "involved a number of other elements" - Are any of these elements significant? If so, it might be worth including one or two.
    • Added two examples.
  • "By the turn of the century, plans had resurfaced to bring LIRR service to East Midtown. In 1995, officials began the planning process for such a link" - "By the turn of the century, plans originating from 1995 had resurfaced to bring LIRR service to East Midtown."
    • Fixed.
  • "In May 2001, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)..." - "Two months later, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)..."
    • Fixed.
  • "The September 11 attacks underscored the need to bring LIRR service to Grand Central" - Why?
    • Added a quote.
  • "The contract went to Dragados/Judlau, a joint American–Spanish venture whose American headquarters were in College Point, Queens, close to the East Side Access site" - I don't think included details about the construction company are significant enough for the context of this article.
  • "Pile Foundation Construction Company" - Same comment as above.
  • "Tutor Perini Corporation" - Same comment as above...and above. 😉
    • All fixed.
  • "The first tracks on the lower level were laid in September 2017.[65] The completion of the project has been pushed back repeatedly from an initial opening date of 2009" - "The first tracks on the lower level were laid in September 2017 even though the project was initially scheduled to be completed by 2009."
    • Moved the track-laying downward to the "Usage" section.
  • "Two tubes were placed on each side of Roosevelt Island.[75] The tubes were 38-foot-square (12 m) prefabricated sections and contained four openings, two for the pair of tracks on each level." - "Two tubes were placed on each side of Roosevelt Island each made up of 38-foot-square (12 m) prefabricated sections" (I think mentioning that there are 4 openings can be implied at this point in the article).
    • Done.
  • "The tunnel was placed into partial service in 1989 and was nicknamed the "tunnel to nowhere" due to its lack of connections in Queens" - This is already mentioned earlier in the article.
    • Removed duplication.
  • There seems to be some overlap (duplicate content) between the "Usage" section and the rest of the article. I would take a look at this section and see if either all of its contents can be merged into the rest of the article or remove the duplicate content from the section.

Overall, good work. On hold for 7-days. Lemme know if you need clarification on anything!--Dom497 (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the 63rd Street Tunnel's upper level took 20 years to open, while the lower level is still under construction after nearly a half-century? Source: NY Times 1969 (start of construction), NY Times 1989 (completion), NY1 2017 (laying track in lower level)
    • ALT1:... that the 63rd Street Tunnel's upper level opened 20 years after its construction started, while the lower level is still under construction after nearly a half-century? Source: Same as above
    • ALT2:... that unlike other underwater subway tunnels in New York City, the 63rd Street Tunnel was prefabricated and sunk into trenches in the river bed? Source: NY Times 2005

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 00:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - ?
Overall: All good to go once QPQ is done. Ping me when it is, and I'll pass. Ergo Sum 05:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Any update on the QPQ? Ergo Sum 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo Sum, I hope to get to it by this weekend. I have another article that I want to nominate for DYK, so it would be better to do all the QPQ's at once. epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: I've done a QPQ. I also added "after nearly a half-century" to ALT0 + 1. epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're in business. Good to go. Ergo Sum 00:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Construction methods

[edit]

https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/The_Construction_of_the_Harlem_River_Tubes_(1915) The IRT Lexington Avenue subway crossing under the Harlem River was built in 1915 by sinking prefabricated sections. Rather then go off on a tangent I simply removed the statement that the 63rd Street tunnel was built unlike all other underwater crossings in NYC. It may be interesting to know that it is only the second case, but before you write that in, please check how the Harlem River crossing of the IND Concourse line was built (I do not know). JoeBrennan (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:63rd_Street_Tunnel&oldid=1197077356"