Template:Did you know nominations/New York City Board of Transportation; 370 Jay Street

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

New York City Board of Transportation, 370 Jay Street

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

• New York City Board of Transportation
• 370 Jay Street

)

• ... that the New York City Board of Transportation built a new headquarters that it only used for two years? Headquarters opened in 1951; NYCBOT dissolved in 1953
  • ALT1:... that the former New York City Board of Transportation's 370 Jay Street building used to store New York City Subway tokens? Source

• Reviewed 1/2: predatory conference
• Reviewed 2/2: Kingston, MS

Created by Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 14:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC).

Review of 370 Jay Street

 • No issues found with article, ready for human review.

• • ✓ This article is new and was created on 10:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 9081 characters
  • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
  • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
  • ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 32.0% confidence. (confirm)
    • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.

Review of New York City Board of Transportation

 • No issues found with article, ready for human review.

• • ✓ This article is new and was created on 07:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 11889 characters
  • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
  • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
  • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (9.9% confidence; confirm)
    • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.

General comments

 • Some overall issues detected

• • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length for 2 nominations at 108 characters
  • ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length for 2 nominations at 116 characters (65 after subtracting extra links)
  • ✗ Epicgenius has more than 5 DYK credits. 2 QPQ reviews are required for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Date, size, refs, etc. seem fine. First hook is verified in the article, I cannot confirm the second one as the word "token" is not used in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: Sorry for the late reply. For the ALT1 hook, try "fares". At the time, fares were tokens. Also, I'll do the two QPQs soon, if you approve of either of the hooks.epicgenius - (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: The first one is approved. The second one is not, as the token-fare thing should be clarified in the article's body. Also, QPQ should be done as soon as the nomination starts, it is not a nice practice to withdold them until they hook is approved. If I failed this nom, would you not do a QPQ review? Because this is what you seem to imply, through of course, AGF, I'll just put it down to a misunderstanding. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: Yeah, sorry. I think I misunderstood. I thought that the QPQs could be done until after the DYK is approved. Apparently that is not the case. I'll do them ASAP. epicgenius - (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Piotrus: Pinging again. epicgenius - (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: I did my QPQs, both of them. epicgenius - (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I did indicate this was GTG earlier, since I AGF your QPQ. I confirm this is GTG for the first hook. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Bot note: Failed to notify nominator User:Epicgenius. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)