Talk:181st Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 06:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Will take this on. If the current closure is temporary, it's probably a good idea to note that in the infobox where the "Closed" parameter seems quite final. The placement of the NRHP information seems quite out of place, not sure how it's part of the "Station layout". I'd generally expect it to be part of a cultural impact section, but if this stations has no such impact, the History section seems a better fit. The "Street stair" caption could be improved. Overall the article looks good at first glance however. Will get to a more detailed study over the next day or two. Best, CMD (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Construction and opening

• "Planning for the city's first subway line dates to the Rapid Transit Act, authorized by the New York State Legislature in 1894." Don't see how the cited source supports this statement. The source indicates that there were plans for rapid transport lines before this. The next source in fact dates planning back to the 1860s.
  •  Fixed There is a longer history at Early history of the IRT subway, and the idea of a subway dates to 1864. which I have added to the article. However, the direct development of the IRT subway line dates to the 1894 legislation. Granted, a lot of this text is just copied and pasted across several articles. Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Can't see where 1899 lawsuits are mentioned in the source.
  •  Fixed The 1899 legal challenges were on page 161. This was part of an issue mentioned in Talk:86th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA2; the previous wording was "legal challenges". In fact, the previous wording may have been more correct, as the source says Thus the year 1899 ended with all the legal difficulties cleared away, all other obstacles surmounted and the path open for the advertisement and award of the great contract. Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Can't find mention of operating lease on page 182 either? Am I just misreading this source? Will ignore it for now hopefully you can provide some answers.
  •  Fixed It was on page 165. The issue is the references previously used date ranges like 162-191, so when fixing these, I accidentally put some incorrect pages. Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• "Due to the steep terrain, the tunnel had to be mined using explosives", not seeing this in the source.
  •  Removed
• "eight Italian immigrants, the foreman from Italy". Surely the foreman was then also an immigrant from Italy?
  •  Fixed
• "a temporary terminus at 221st Street and Broadway", source says it was the 200th street, no mention of Broadway.
  •  Fixed I removed the bit about Broadway. The source mentions 220th Street for some reason; service went to the 221st Street station, which was a temporary station just south of the Harlem River Ship Canal. I'm not sure how best to resolve this discrepancy - a lot of this info is based off geographical information that would be pretty clear to New Yorkers but not to people unfamiliar with the area - so I just added a footnote. Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• "This extension was served by shuttle trains operating between 157th Street and 221st Street for two months." Not seeing this in the source.
  •  Removed I removed this irrelevant bit from the article. This is per WP:CALC - the shuttle service started in March 1906 but through trains started that May. However, the shuttle trains never served the 181st Street station, so this issue would be better solved by the detail in question being removed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Stopping for now, would appreciate clarity on whether I'm reading the sources wrong, especially Walker. CMD (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the initial comments. I'll tackle these in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I read your comment about the NRHP information. It may not really fit in a cultural impact section - this is more about the historical significance, so I've moved it to the history section. Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• "was on track to be completed by March 1, 1911, with their in service date to be earlier than that." What does this mean, how can they be in service before they are built?
  • Some elevators were to be completed beforehand. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• "platforms on the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line from 103rd Street to 238th Street were lengthened to 514 feet (157 m) to allow full ten-car express trains to stop at this station", the "at this station" seems a bit incongruous, as the subject of the sentence is an entire stretch of line. Also, did it stop being the West Side line at this point?
  •  Fixed Also, the West Side Line was the portion of the original subway above 96th Street, which became part of the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line. I believe "Construction and opening" covers this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Odd jump between the second and third paragraphs. The second talks about extending and how it would increase capacity and how at least the northbound was extended, following which 10-car trains began to run. The third then seems to repeat on length/car number issues, but also says ten-car trains could not open their doors? What did the extension do then?
  •  Fixed Not all cars in 10-car trains could open their doors. This was discussed in Talk:116th Street–Columbia University station/GA1. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• "The Broadway/West Side route", what is this novel route name?
  •  Fixed This is now explained in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• The Annual Report For The Year Ending June 30, 1959 source cites three pages (8-10), but from what I can tell only 1 is needed (9).
  •  Done
• "The southern elevators were closed circa 1981." Source mentions the mezzanine closing, not the elevators, but assuming these go together, why "circa"? The source gives a firm date.
  •  Removed Incidentally, the elevators could not operate after that date, either. The mezzanine was the only egress of the elevators. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• The second elevator paragraph seems sourced to an information bulletin that doesn't provide a lot of the information cited.
• Probably better to combine the two tiny elevator paragraphs on either side of skip-stop. A shift in chronology either way, and this keeps related topics together.
  •  Done
• "In 2004, the number of elevator attendants at the station and four others in Washington Heights was reduced to one per station as a result of budget cuts by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The agency had intended to remove all the attendants, but kept one in each station after many riders protested. The change saved $1.2 million a year." Don't see how this could all be supported by a source from 2003.
  •  Fixed
• "On December 7, 2007, the MTA announced that it would not remove the remaining elevator operators at these stations. The move was intended to save $1.7 million a year, but was not implemented due to pushback from elected officials and residents from the area." This sentence should be reshuffled, with "The move was intended to save $1.7 million a year" before other information (and rewritten) to match the prior sentence, and leaving all information about not doing so together.
• "the MTA again proposed removing the elevator operators at the five stations, but this decision was reversed", was this a proposal or a decision?
  •  Fixed
• Sources [10] and [53] are the same source, Dwyer, Jim (August 18, 2009). "Subway Station Ceilings Were Built to Last, but Not Forever.
  •  Fixed
• What happened to the 2012 renovations? Did they occur? Did they finish in the timeframe?
  • They were finished. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• "During construction, M3 bus service", should this be "the M3 bus service"?
  • In regard to common usage here, this would not be correct grammar. "During construction, bus service on the M3 route was increased" may be correct, but "M3" in this case would be a noun, not an adjective. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't access most of the sources in this section, but given an issue was found and given the previous section this is a bit concerning.

Station layout

• Dougherty, Peter (2006) could use a page number. I also don't see where the source next to it supports the cited statement.
• Subway map link seems dead.
  •  Fixed
• "the shaft is used only as an emergency exit, and contains a staircase", contradicts source, which says it is used for ventilation, and doesn't mention emergency use.
  •  Fixed

Design seems well-written and supported.

Overall, it does feel this nomination was premature. Some sourcing concerns were addressed, but it seems there were more even among accessible ones. It does feel like there could be one or two more images, and that the images could be more effectively situated and captioned. On broadness, I'm not sure how reliable Forgotten NY is, but it notes there were 3 overhead crossovers[1]. This source notes that the elevator repair is intended to allow them to open directly onto the platform, which if true is missing from the article. This source and the MTA (assume that source got it from the MTA source) also say the elevators are 80 years old, whereas the article (and the bulletin sourced) say new ones were installed in the 90s. It would be interesting to know what exactly happened in the 90s and what is happening now, if sources allow. This article is also missing why the station is so deep, a question that seems readily answered by the Wheels that drove New York source already used for a different page. Given these, I am going to close this GAN for now, as it seems to need a thorough source check, but I hope work progresses on the matter, and that it can become a good article before it reopens. Best, CMD (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, thanks for the review anyway. I do also think this article needs a little cleanup, so I'll resolve these issues and send it back once these are done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)