Talk:Clark Street station

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

Platform depth below street level?[edit]

Does anyone have any figures for the platform depth below street level? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clark 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Clark Street station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Alright beginning review.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Copyvio check fine
  • Sourced used are from transport agencies or NYT. Both reliable.
  • "The Clark Street station" - I note the article keeps adding the article "The" before the station name. Is it nomenclature for NYCS station articles in general? I find just saying "Clark Street station" more natural. E.g. "Clark Street station is about 80 feet (24 m) deep" instead of "The Clark Street station is about 80 feet (24 m) deep".
    • It indeed is standard practice for NYCS station articles to say "The X station". Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through the history, you might want to mention the former name (Brooklyn Heights station) in the lead and unbold the former name in the history section of the body.
  • "Soon after the station opened, the Public Service Commission began planning to install an escalator there, as passengers had to climb 71 steps to exit the station." - I guess no follow-up on this plan?
    • Nope. To this day, the only access to this station is via elevator. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious, what's wrong with sailors using the station?
    • When the station opened, it was the closest subway stop to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which was about half a mile or nearly a kilometer away. Thousands of sailors worked at the Navy Yard, but the Clark Street station's only access point was via two elevators. As such, when sailors traveled to the station all at once, they overloaded the elevators, causing crowding. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah I see.
      Hmm now the passage becomes: "using it from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. to reduce overcrowding.[33] The station's existing elevators had become overcrowded by 1930." To prevent repetition, suggest "The station's existing elevators had become overloaded/reached beyond capacity by 1930". ZKang123 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have done that. Epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) announced plans in 1956 to add fluorescent lights above the edges of the station's platforms.[42] The lights were installed the next year.[43]" - Suggest merging these sentences to: The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) announced plans in 1956 to add fluorescent lights,[42] which were installed above the edges of the station's platforms in the subsequent year.[43]
  • "The station was selected for a renovation in 1979, and design work for the renovation" suggest "design work for the project" or another substitute.
  • "The project was planned to cost $1.25 million" - wonder if "projected" would be fine instead of "planned".
    • This would be repeating the word "project" in close proximity, so I've changed it to "the project was budgeted at $1.25 million". Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MTA hired a new contractor." - was it said whom?
    • Unfortunately, no. The NYT source just says The Clark Street project was designed in 1982. After the year and a half originally allotted for its completion, only 25 percent of the work had been done and the contractor was banished. A new contractor has now been hired. One stop away is the Borough Hall station, similarly behind schedule and already showing signs of premature aging. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new fans had to be modified, as required too much electricity and could not turn on." - This sentence seems worded weirdly. Suggest "The new fans had to be modified, as they required too much electricity and could not be turned on", if I guess that's the original intention.
  • I'm personally amused how the elevators still seem to break down despite various upgrade programmes.
    • Yeah. It certainly doesn't help that the station is open 24/7 and that the elevators are the only access point to the station. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor nitpick, but I wonder if you can just have the "20th century" header to be "Post-opening" and have the "21st century" header to be a subsection of that.
  • The article looks to be in good shape. Putting the article on hold.

Further thoughts

I just realized the article section on station layout didn't say much on the location and its surrounding landmarks. Are there official sources on what the station serves (such as for Singapore).--ZKang123 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have neighborhood maps, but there really isn't much in the surrounding area. Unlike Singapore or even other parts of NYC, this is a largely residential neighborhood with low-rise development. Epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Bruxton (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Clark Street station
The Clark Street station

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk) and Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 15:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Clark Street station; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Date (GA) is fine, a lot of stuff AGF-ed per GA review, so focusing on hooks. The main hook I feel is (sorry for being blunt) mundane and not very interestng. Ditto for ALT3. As such, I'd prefer ALT1 or 2, with preference to 1, since I am not sure if "ban" is the correct terminology. So in the end - review pass for ALT1. All that remains is the QPQ. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clark_Street_station&oldid=1199841277"