Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/AirTrain JFK/archive2
Blurb review edit
Pinging the nom and supporters, @Epicgenius, Dudley Miles, AmericanAir88, Casliber, HJ Mitchell, and Mike Christie: hi guys, this one was just promoted. Could 3 or 4 of you take a minute to read the following suggested TFA blurb, and feel free to make changes or ask questions? Even a quick vetting process might help us deal with problems at WP:ERRORS. If all goes well, I'll make a more formal proposal at WT:TFA in a couple of weeks. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dank: Thanks for the ping. I removed "to American airports", since the AirTrain only serves JFK Airport, and I don't know what other interpretation could exist. Otherwise, it looks good for now. epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was just removing it myself. Some people get grouchy if we never mention "American" or "US", and others get grouchy if we say something duh-inducing like "New York City, US". I can almost always find a place to insert "American" in a natural way ... but I'm drawing a blank here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Going to try something different: I just added "the Canadian firm Bombardier Transportation". Let's see if that makes the ERRORistas happy. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I'd say Bombardier's nationality is even less relevant. If we were talking about Boston or Lincoln (for example) I'd probably insist you include the country somewhere because there are multiple places with those names and it's not necessarily clear from context that you're talking about Lincolnshire or Massachusetts/Nebraska (or indeed California or any of the many other Lincolns), but I'd expect even non-native English speakers to know where New York City is. I'd say the same for any world-famous city with an unambiguous name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree - Bombardier's nationality is a little irrelevant here. On the other hand, the location of NYC is quite well known. If we need to, we can say "...John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, United States."Also pinging @Tdorante10 and Kew Gardens 613: for their feedback, since they have worked extensively on similar articles. epicgenius (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- No objection to getting rid of "Canadian" or to finding a place to add "United States". Note that there's no such place as "New York City, United States"; either US city names appear alone or they're followed by a state. There's nothing wrong with "New York City in the United States", but if you write that often enough, sooner or later someone will object on the grounds of duh. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK, then I agree that just saying "New York City" is fine. However, I have heard "Montreal, Canada", as the location where you'll end up after traveling north from NYC for 6 hours. Just saying... Also, I reworded the blurb a bit, since "Under construction beginning in 1998" sounds weird. epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's right, and that format is usually fine outside North America ... "Paris" and "Paris, France" are fine. "Raleigh, United States" is generally shunned by writers and publishers. Some Canadians think "Montreal, Canada" is fine, some don't. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK, then I agree that just saying "New York City" is fine. However, I have heard "Montreal, Canada", as the location where you'll end up after traveling north from NYC for 6 hours. Just saying... Also, I reworded the blurb a bit, since "Under construction beginning in 1998" sounds weird. epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- No objection to getting rid of "Canadian" or to finding a place to add "United States". Note that there's no such place as "New York City, United States"; either US city names appear alone or they're followed by a state. There's nothing wrong with "New York City in the United States", but if you write that often enough, sooner or later someone will object on the grounds of duh. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree - Bombardier's nationality is a little irrelevant here. On the other hand, the location of NYC is quite well known. If we need to, we can say "...John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, United States."Also pinging @Tdorante10 and Kew Gardens 613: for their feedback, since they have worked extensively on similar articles. epicgenius (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I'd say Bombardier's nationality is even less relevant. If we were talking about Boston or Lincoln (for example) I'd probably insist you include the country somewhere because there are multiple places with those names and it's not necessarily clear from context that you're talking about Lincolnshire or Massachusetts/Nebraska (or indeed California or any of the many other Lincolns), but I'd expect even non-native English speakers to know where New York City is. I'd say the same for any world-famous city with an unambiguous name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
AirTrain JFK is an 8.1-mile-long (13 km) elevated people mover system and rail link serving John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. Its three lines and ten stations, operated by the Canadian firm Bombardier Transportation, connect the airport's six terminals with the New York City Subway in Howard Beach, Queens, and with the Long Island Rail Road and subway in Jamaica, Queens. In-depth planning for a dedicated transport system at JFK began in 1990, and construction commenced in 1998. The system opened in December 2003 after multiple delays. Since then, several improvements have been proposed for AirTrain JFK, including an extension to Manhattan. The system was originally projected to carry 4 million annual paying passengers and 8.4 million annual inter-terminal passengers, but the AirTrain has consistently exceeded these projections; in 2017, it had approximately 7.66 million paying passengers and 12.6 million inter-terminal passengers.