Talk:Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport station

Article title

This is why I renamed this article to "Jamaica Center–Parsons/Archer (New York City Subway)": the "Archer Avenue Line" is not one line shared by two divisions (whatever that means). There are two completely distinct and separate lines running under Archer Avenue, which use different radio frequencies for communication, have different chaining designations, and have no physical connections. In fact, the lower level could be considered part of the BMT Jamaica Line, while the upper level could be seen as part of the IND Queens Boulevard Line. We consider them separately (oops) together for historical reasons (i.e., they were built at the same time), but the two levels are not one line. In fact, the article Archer Avenue Line is highly misleading. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Archer Avenue Lines which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Username6892 (talk · contribs) 04:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I will review this article. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• For the reasons elaborated here, I don't think this should be a good article. There are way too many problems with sourcing, coverage, and copyright violations, in addition to the fact that loads more can be written about the history and station layout. There was also no consultation with the major editors of this page (me and Kew Gardens 613). This looks no better than a start-class page. epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

This article definitely meets at least 2 of the criteria to be quick failed:

1. Long way from meeting any one of the six: Not sure, possibly for 1b.

2. Contains copyvios: Yes

3. Has/Needs cleanup banners which are unquestionably still valid. Yes, I added quite a few of them. The text that is a copyvio is very cluttered and needs cleanup. I think the entire station layout section (Except for the exits) needs to be rewritten and sourced properly (One web citation with no url?) The image should be relocated to lessen the clutter.

4. It is unstable due to edit warring: No

Other things needed

This doesn't cover all of the criteria, just that which I found to be lacking (I didn't do a full review as this is quickfailed)

Lead

The lead is way too long (It is nearly a third of the prose)

History

Divided into subsections when it really doesn't need to be

Station layout

Only one sentence that isn't in the Exits subsection is cited, which uses a web citation template with no url

Exits

On the southeast corner, two escalators and a staircase going up outside the Long Island Rail Road's Jamaica station. Source material doesn't mention escalators

Bus connections

No source

I haven't done much of a source and image review, but this needs large improvement before it can be renominated. Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.subwaynut.com/ct/sutphine/index.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)