Article is already nearly on par with the rest of the articles, just some issues left to be addressed.
'The contract for the section of the line that included the Prospect Avenue station, Route 11A3, which extended from 10th Street to 27th Street, was awarded on May 22, 1908, ' awarded to who?
1920s renovation- Was the platforms extended twice or only once? it currently suggests that there was an extension in 1922 and 1925.
@1.02 editor: The BMT had been supposed to extend them, but did not until 1925. I thought that was clear from the text. How should I clarify this point?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Kew Gardens 613: It is mentioned 'On June 27, 1922, the New York State Transit Commission directed its engineers to prepare plans to lengthen the platforms at 23 stations of the Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT)' and 'The BMT had been ordered by the Transit Commission to lengthen these platforms since September 1923'. This is what led to it being confusing for me, as i interpreted the second statement as another order to lengthen the platforms. This comes to the question of which date is correct or were they ordered to do it twice? 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also specify who the contract was awarded to for the 2017 renovation
It does specify, saying Citnalta-Forte Joint Venture. It was just in the wrong place in the paragraph. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
paragraph on the celing being lower should be removed.
Latest comment: 3 years ago28 comments4 people in 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.
... that the 9th, 25th, 45th, 53rd, 59th, and Union Streets and Prospect Avenue stations were all opened in 1915 as part of a subway extension to Coney Island? Source: Cudahy, Brian J. (2009). How We Got to Coney Island: The Development of Mass Transportation in Brooklyn and Kings County. Fordham University Press. pp. 217–218.
ALT4: ... that the 9th, 25th, 59th, and Union Streets and Prospect Avenue stations were opened with a competition between two trains heading to Coney Island, while the 45th and 53rd Streets stations' openings were delayed by three months? Brooklyn Eagle; "Stations of Subway are Now Opened". Home Talk the Item. September 22, 1915. pp. 1, 14
Comment: Any wording suggestions are appreciated. The oldest were passed as GA 7 days and a few hours ago, but I was asleep at the time the last article was passed, and didn't get a chance to nominate them until the morning. epicgenius (talk)
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Review of Prospect avenue DannyS712 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
General
@Epicgenius: for ALT1, I struggled to find the fact on the source linked - where on the page is it / what paragraph am I looking for? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also, ALT0 isn't really interesting, and can I suggest "9th" instead of "Ninth" to be consistent? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
DannyS712, thanks for taking this up. ALT1 is actually split up into two different locations in all these articles. I will add these sources to the lead of all the articles. Yes, we can switch "9th" for "Ninth". I have suggested ALT2 too, same source as ALT0. epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Epicgenius: I meant where in the source is the information / what paragraph in the source page am I looking for? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
DannyS712 For ALT1, for the first source, the relevant paragraph is on the right side of the page toward the top. The second source is offline. For ALT0/ALT2, the relevant page range is offline but you can check this source too. epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
BTW, the Eagle source also mentions a competition between two trains using the Sea Beach and West End lines, stopping at these stations. Would that make for a good hook? It is not cited in these articles yet. epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, found the part in the source for ALT1. But, it appears to only say the extensions were authorized / funded, not that they occured --DannyS712 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@DannyS712: I might have picked the wrong source. Could you check out ALT3? epicgenius (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The stations aren't all mentioned in the source for alt3 --DannyS712 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
All right, for ALT1, I have added this source to all the articles. For ALT0/ALT2, five of the seven stations are mentioned (all except 45th and 53rd) and there are other sources (like this and Cudahy) which show that all of the Fourth Avenue stations opened at the same time. I will add these soon. epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@DannyS712: So apparently my ALT3 was wrong. I have added an ALT4. Can you take a look at this? Many thanks. I have also fixed the sourcing for ALT0 and ALT2 across all pages epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have collapsed the individual reviews to make this more manageable, and removed the AGF for the source for the hook, since it looks like it'll be a different hook than the one those were for. I'll take a look at the alts proposed. Other than the hook being interesting, in the articles, and cited, the other requirements are met. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
ALT0: N not interesting
ALT1: Rejected Source does not confirm the hook - it says the extensions were authorized / funded, not that they occured
ALT2: N not interesting
ALT3: N Was withdrawn by nominator
ALT4: Interesting enough, AGF for offline sources. Will check that it is in all the articles and sourced, but barring further complications it should be okay
Unfortunately given the overlap between articles, some of these fall short of the minimum 1500 characters of original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Yoninah and Nikkimaria: Would it be all right to remove the 45th and 53rd Street links, given that they are almost identical up to the Exits subsection? These seem to be the odd ones out (having not opened with the rest of the stations). So basically this? epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
ALT5: ... that the 9th, 25th, 59th, and Union Streets and Prospect Avenue stations were opened with a competition between two trains heading to Coney Island?
What content are you counting towards which article? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Review of 9th street DannyS712 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
not interesting
Rejected Source does not confirm the hook - it says the extensions were authorized / funded, not that they occured
Unfortunately given the overlap between articles, some of these fall short of the minimum 1500 characters of original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)