Talk:Hunts Point Avenue station/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 14:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll hopefully get to it relatively quickly! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've seen a few of these articles, and have always wondered what the justification for the use of bold text is when dealing with train numbers. Would you be able to elucidate? After all, it seems to violate MOS:BOLD, and I'm not clear what it's trying to highlight?
- @Epicgenius: Is there a concrete reason this is done? I have always done it because that is how it was done in other articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No concrete reason. I did it for the same reason as you. Actually, during my first few years of editing, these articles all had a bunch of MOS violations such as MOS:AT (in regards to spaced en-dashes and spaced slashes). These editors are mostly inactive now, though. epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then I'm not convinced (at the moment) as to why we are arbitrarily bolding text mid-prose (the infobox, for instance, doesn't appear to bold it) so would recommend we start a new trend of not bolding such train numbers.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"<6>" my ignorance (again I suspect) but what are those <> doing there? It appears to link to 6d??
- @The Rambling Man: That is for the 6 express, which is shown on maps and trains in a diamond.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To add on to this, WP:NCTR prohibits the creation of titles with <> in them. epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"ADA-accessible" we usually look to not use abbreviations until the first instance of the expanded version is used.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This station opened in 1919 as part of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT)'s Pelham Line." you could use that expanded version in the first sentence instead of going straight into IRT Pelham Line...
- @The Rambling Man and Epicgenius: This is how we have typically written the leads of articles. It is simpler this way.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also think that conciseness would be better here, rather than writing out the full name in the very first sentence. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company no longer exists, and it would be excessively long to write [[IRT Pelham Line|Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT)'s Pelham Line]]. epicgenius (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Foxhurst is mentioned in the infobox, and only in the infobox...
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"across New York City" I don't think you need repeat that given "New York City" was one of the decision-makers, perhaps just "across the city".
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"and the IRT, was known" no comma required.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"January 7, 1919 as" comma after 1919.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, e.g. first sentence of "Renovations" section.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Vickers-designed mosaic friezes in muted shades of blue, grey and beige, with occasional bits of pale pink" I've never heard of Vickers, could we just refer to him by complete name? And "bits" is a somewhat unencyclopedic term...
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"green i-beam columns" I have always seen this represented as I beam, because the shape of it is for the capital I, not the small one...
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think ridership and its general trend should be covered in the prose.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first set of comments, so I'll put the nomination on hold while we discuss these points. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613 I responded above re: bold numbers. I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep doing it this way because it's the way it's been done on other articles, especially if there's nothing in the MOS to support it (in fact, the opposite...) Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done The Rambling Man I agree. This is something that we at WP:NYCPT will need to work on and phase out.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nice work. I think we're good to go here, and thanks for the sensible approach to the bold numbering. If the consensus there is to restore it, who am I to argue, but best to get that consensus. Cheers also to epicgenius for opining. I'm passing the nomination, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]