Talk:Program for Action

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 1 October 2015 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Rapid transit / in New York City Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 6, 2018

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as High-importance).

Program for Action has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 28, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 7, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Program for Action, a transportation proposal in New York City, was drastically truncated in the 1970s due to a lack of funds?

Orphaned references in Program for Action (New York City Subway)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Program for Action (New York City Subway)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes":

From New York City: Berger, Joseph (July 19, 2010). "Reclaimed Jewel Whose Attraction Can Be Perilous". New York Times. Retrieved July 21, 2010.
From List of New York City Subway yards: Kennedy, Randy (January 21, 2003). "TUNNEL VISION; Next Stop, 'Twilight Zone' (a k a 76th St. Station)". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2014.
From K (Eighth Avenue Local): Big Changes For Subways Are to Begin
From Beacon, New York: Martin, Douglas (2013-07-11). "Toshi Seeger, Wife of Folk-Singing Legend, Dies at 91". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-08-07.
From Archer Avenue Lines: Johnson, Kirk (1988-12-09). "Big Changes For Subways Are to Begin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-05.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Program for Action. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot11706.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Program for Action/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lovinne (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to do GA review. At first glance, the article looks good. I will update soon.

Thank you for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Very well written. Some minor errors corrected. Under the "63rd street subway" heading, the list has fragment sentences, but I think it's pretty clear that those serve as titles.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Plenty of reliable sources, books and historical news articles alike. Consensus from multiple references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broad, fact-based coverage. Lots of detail, but it's relevant.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I think the images could be bigger.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Nicely done!