Talk:History of Grand Central Terminal

GA nomination

@PointsofNoReturn and Ɱ: I think it's at GA quality already, so I just nominated this article for GA status. Are you guys fine with being co-nominators? epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yessir, it looks great, though you should be duly noted first, as this is almost entirely your work! ɱ (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

North End Access Project

@PointsofNoReturn, Ɱ, and Epicgenius: I think that more should be included on the Grand Central North project I found a planning document for it at the back of this. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Kew Gardens 613, I think that sounds like a good idea. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Track numbers

Is there a way we can bring up the track re-numberings explained here? I didn't see any mention of it on these articles. Cards84664 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, where's track 102A and 103A on our map? Cards84664 (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cards84664, I think these "tracks" may actually be platform numbers because these platforms are Spanish solution. epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Cards84664 (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I never really bothered to use this ref because although I like iridetheharlemline, it's a self-published blog with a single uncredentialed amateur blogger. Not really a reliable source. The narrative makes sense and appears accurate, which is why I hope other more reliable sources might use this info. As well, it's a very specific detail that I thought might be too specific for these articles, but now we're really including most everything, so that point's no longer as relevant. ɱ (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Grand Central Terminal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 04:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is... massive. This review will take a while. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it on! ɱ (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Alert for multiple nominators

@Epicgenius, PointsofNoReturn, and Ɱ: Review time :) –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• The current structure [...] The new structure [...] The current Grand Central Terminal Boring, change these up.

 Done by Epicgenius, marking off. ɱ (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Context

• "Background" may be a better title.
  •  Done
• Drew's efforts to short-sell Harlem and New York Central stock failed, [...] This is the first mention of any short-selling of stock.
  •  Fixed I reworded to mention that he tried and failed to short-sell. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• [...] having been incorporated in 1831 [...] Is there a link that could be applied here?
  •  Done

Grand Central Depot

• Vanderbilt commissioned John B. Snook to design his new station, dubbed Grand Central Depot, on the site of the 42nd Street depot. Date plz
  •  Done I'm not sure if it's necessary, because "commissioning" is intended to be a passive verb, rather than an active verb. I added the date anyway. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• The site was far outside the limits of the developed city at the time, [...] First mention of this being the case in the article.
  • This gives context to the rest of the sentence. I added an earlier mention that the area was sparsely developed. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Although Vanderbilt was inspired by French Classical architecture, This links to French Baroque architecture - is there referring to a specific section of the linked article? Did you mean Neoclassicism in France?
  • This is the correct link. According to the French Baroque article, French Baroque architecture, sometimes called French classicism, was a style of architecture. Neoclassicism is different. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• It was considered the largest open space in the United States at the time. Grand Central Depot was the largest railroad station in the world at the time, as it contained 12 tracks and could accommodate 150 train cars at once. This can be condensed.
  •  Done
• But the tracks laid to the new terminal proved problematic. Axe the "but" here.
  •  Done
• The following year, [...] Replace with the year in discussion.
  •  Done

Grand Central Station

• [...] and there was much criticism of the station's cleanliness. Lack of cleanliness?
  • Changed "lack of cleanliness" to "filthiness". PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Replacement

• a majestic electric-train hub Peacock-y; remove "majestic".
  • Changed "majestic" to "high-end". Does that terminology work for you? It should be noted that Penn Station was pretty to give context as to why Grand Central was built the way it was. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Perfectly operable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

World War II

• the terminal's windows were applied with blackout paint Condense to "the terminal's windows were blacked out".

Clarify that I think it's good to note that they were painted over, not boarded up or anything. ɱ (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but the delivery is still a little awkward. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I rearranged the sentence a bit to remove this awkwardness, I think "applied" was the problematic word. epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• The war also prompted the Farm Security Administration to install a 118 ft × 100 ft (36 m × 30 m) mural on the Main Concourse's east wall in 1941. The mural had a montage of photographs. It was part of a campaign to sell war bonds. Condense.
  •  Done
• During World War II, the terminal also Delete this first clause.
  •  Done

1980s: Air rights and withdrawal of intercity service

• The project restored the building's cornice; removing blackout paint applied to the skylights during World War II; installing new doors; and cleaning marble floors and walls. Make this past-tense and replace the semicolons with commas.
  • @Vami IV:  Done. As a courtesy, can you ping us when you have new comments? I would really appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rehabilitation

@Epicgenius, PointsofNoReturn, and Ɱ: updated :) –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Each piece of new stone What happened to the old pieces after their removal?
  • Not sure, the source doesn't say. I'm assuming they may have been recycled. epicgenius (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Aw well. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• applied to the windows during World War II. Redundant, remove.
  • Done. epicgenius (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• @Vami IV: What remains to be completed in this review? ɱ (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

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) 06:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Grand Central Terminal

• ... that New York City's Grand Central Terminal was built as a replacement for two previous stations? Source: NY Times
  • ALT1:... that New York City's Grand Central Terminal (pictured) was built at its current location because of a prohibition of steam trains in Lower Manhattan? Source: NYCLPC p. 2
  • ALT2:... that throughout the history of Grand Central Terminal, it has hosted models of a missile and an aircraft carrier, as well as a jump rope competition? Source: (1) Robins, A.W.; New York Transit Museum (2013). Grand Central Terminal: 100 Years of a New York Landmark. p. 200; (2) NY Times 1988

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The equatorie of the planetis
• Comment: Grand Central was also improved to GA status, but is not eligible due to having been an OTD article. epicgenius (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk), Ɱ (talk), and PointsofNoReturn (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 14:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC).

• To be honest, I might want to try my hand writing hooks for this after work today. There's a lot more obscure secrets and wacky events that have taken place more than what's included here. ɱ (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Substantial GA article(s), on excellent sources, no copyvio obvious. I approve ALT1 (original is boring, ALT2 trivia), but why is this without an image? I am quite open for more interesting hooks, go ahead. And go for FA, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the review. Here is an image: File:Image-Grand central Station Outside Night 2.jpg It is a featured image on Wikimedia Commons and used on the article, so it should be fine, but could you check this as well? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

the image is licensed, and high quality and shows well. Only: it's not from the period of building the hook talks about. No problem, just a historic one might be even more suitable. - Can I interest you in the peer review of Clara Schumann? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt thanks. I'll check when I have time. epicgenius (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible FAC

@PointsofNoReturn and Ɱ: I think we should try to get this to FAC as well. I believe this is extensive enough that any gaps in the history would be insignificant. Should I request a copy edit of this page at WP:GOCE? They might catch some things we may have missed. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Confusing passage

@Ɱ:: This sentence — "The current structure was built by and named for the New York Central Railroad, though it also served the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad and has continued under New York Central's successors" — leaves the reader wondering "has continued to what?" The article Grand Central Terminal says the station "was built by and named for the New York Central Railroad; it also served the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad and, later, successors to the New York Central." I suggest we adopt that text. PRRfan (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that version is better than either we liked. But I'd like to note that based on the sentence structure, "continued" refers to the last verb used, in this case "served" or "serves". Like "the waiter served one large table, and continues to there out on the patio". ɱ (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a regional usage to say "has continued" without "to serve" or "to do so"? In any case, the New Haven no longer exists, so the poor reader was left to wonder just what "has continued". In any case, the new text takes care of both problems, so all's well ends well. PRRfan (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

1976 bombing

I made an edit to the description of the 1976 incident in which a bomb planted at Grand Central by Croatian nationalists exploded, killing a police officer. I included a "citation needed" tag and reworded some of the description. My edit was promptly reverted on the ground that three sources cited at the end of the passage supported the earlier version of the text. This is wrong, and I intend to edit the passage once again in keeping with my earlier changes.

Before my edit, the article stated the following about the incident:

On September 10, 1976, a group of Croatian nationalists planted a bomb in a coin locker at Grand Central Terminal. The group also hijacked a plane. After stating their political demands, they revealed the location and provided the instructions for disarming the Grand Central Terminal bomb. The disarming operation was not executed properly and the resulting explosion injured three New York City Police Department officers and killed one bomb squad specialist.

There are two oddities about this description. First, the three sources listed at the end of the paragraph make no mention of instructions for disarming the bomb. They say that the bombmakers left directions for finding (or, in one source, "remov[ing]") the bomb--not "disarming" it.

Second, the phrasing of the earlier version ("disarming operation was not executed properly") connotes some wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the officers tasked with disarming the bomb. None of the three sources suggests anything to that effect. The cited N.Y. Times article (an obituary of one of the bombers) states, "The police officers took the device to a bomb squad demolition range in the Bronx. There, as officers tried to defuse the bomb, it detonated, killing Officer Brian J. Murray, partly blinding Sgt. Terrence McTigue and wounding Officer Hank Dworkin and Deputy Inspector Fritz O. Behr." The cited Time magazine article states, "In extracting the bomb and the messages from the locker, New York police took successful precautions. They were not so fortunate in attempting to defuse the bomb, which was sealed in a home pressure cooker. When a detonating device failed to explode the bomb, four policemen went to have a closer look, and the bomb suddenly went off. One officer, his chest blown away, died instantly. The others were severely wounded." The cited book passage (on p.82 of Relentless Pursuit: The DSS and the Manhunt for the Al-Qaeda Terrorists) states, "A powerful bomb that had been planted in Grand Central Station exploded in a fireball of destruction that killed a detective from the NYPD Bomb Squad . . . ."

If there are other sources that support the assertions in the earlier version of the discussion of the 1976 bombing, they should be cited. These sources do not suffice. I am not a Croatian nationalist, so I have no interest in minimizing the severity of the bombing or assigning blame to the police rather than the bombmakers for the loss of life that resulted from this incident.

I have changed the text to read, "The bomb exploded as the police attempted to disarm it, injuring three NYPD officers and killing a bomb squad specialist." This version is (1) accurate, (2) supported by the cited sources, and (3) neutral as to the "blame" for the bomb's detonation. Pjb dinky (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying why you changed the text - it wasn't immediately clear why you added the {{citation needed}} template, as it seemed that the info about the presence of a bomb in GCT was already sourced to the Time article, the NY Times article, and the Katz book.

With that explanation, it's much clearer that you were doubting the fact that the locker didn't contain instructions for disarming the bomb, not the fact that there was a bomb in the first place. I have no objection to your proposed change. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)