Talk:Fulton Center/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

• Not an issue for GA, but you may wish to fix the following dead links: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Also, the facebook link doesn't appear to lead to wherever it should.
  • Removed Facebook; I will archive the other sources. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • tribecacitizen.com a reliable source?
  • untappedcities.com
  • secondavenuesagas.com
    • Tribeca Citizen is a local newspaper. I removed the other two. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

      Per this it's "a one-man band". That doesn't prove it's not reliable, but I think we need a bit more evidence. Does it regularly get cited by other reliable sources, for example? Can we find descriptions of it as reliable in other sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

      I removed one instance and am trying to find a source for the other (the Cortlandt-WTC transfer). The MTA didn't exactly announce the Cortlandt-WTC transfer to the public, but this video proves that it exists, and this Reddit thread shows the MTA updated their official subway map. epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Would you make the same edits to the layout (G, B1, B2) that you did for the South Ferry/Whitehall Street article? I think non-subway-buff readers would find it more readable that way.
• The "Components" section describes elements of the construction project. I think that now the project has been completed, it would make more sense to slightly rephrase all this so it's the components of the center; the construction is now historical. The notes on the construction can stay, but changing just a few words would change the emphasis to the reader. E.g. The major elements of the Fulton Center rehabilitation project included -> "The major elements of the Fulton Center include". I wouldn't fail GA for this, because the information is all here, but I think it's back-to-front as it stands.
• This portion of the project is part of a master lease to lease over 60,000 square feet of space: this feels like a forward looking statement from the days of the project; can it be restated in the past or present tense now the project is completed?
  • Done.
• It is applying for LEED certification: the source is three years old; can we update this?
  • Done.
• There were plans for a free transfer between Cortlandt Street and World Trade Center stations: the source doesn't say this, it just says "R and E lines". Can I take it that the station names are unambiguously determined by that?
  • Yes. The Cortlandt Street station on the R train, and the World Trade Center station on the E train, are also shown in an MTA brochure. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• however this plan was removed due to value engineering: a fancy way of saying cost overruns; I think we should go with simpler language.
  • Done.
• The "Planning and cutbacks" section seems a bit more detailed than necessary, and the last paragraph, which lists details of various cuts, is confusing because much of it is without dates, and seems out of sequence with the earlier information -- e.g. the dome is eliminated in the fourth paragraph, but discussed again in the last paragraph. I think compressing this would help the article. Similar comments apply to later sections -- do we need to know when temporary passages opened and closed, for example? In the "Design and construction" subsection of the "Fulton Building" section, do we need to know what the NYT reported as the overrun in 2006? The 2008 revisions to the plan are clearly important.
  • These details describe gradual cutbacks that became larger over time. The 2008 revisions were the result of at least three budget increases. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• In July 2008, the Federal Transit Administration announced it would not fund the cost overruns associated with the Fulton Center. However, the MTA is using 2009 federal stimulus money to help fund the project. Why do we care now about the announcement then? And the next sentence is again in the wrong tense.
  • I rewrote this section and moved it up to the "Planning" section. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• In March 2008, the MTA indicated that an above ground structure will be built at the site... Again this seems uninteresting now; no doubt it was relevant information when announced, but it's been superseded. And the tense is wrong.
  • I rewrote this section and moved it up to the "Planning" section. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

    OK on both the above points; they do fit better there. I'm still thinking about that section, but I'll strike these points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Throughout the construction phases of the project, all four stations in the original complex were rehabilitated: suggest "The project rehabilitated all four stations in the original complex".
  • Done.

    My bad; we now have "...original complex. Complex ramps..." which needs a tweak. Perhaps "original structure"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• The Fulton Center project involves three station rehabilitation projects: more present tense; should now be past. Similarly there is "These entrances would allow" later.
  • Done.
• There's some uncited material in the "IND transfer mezzanine" section.
  • Added a source. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• A white false wall separates the work area (transit center building) from the now-public passageways is put up in the Western Mezzanine: looks like an incompletely edited sentence, and was this a temporary false wall, or permanent? If temporary it's not worth mentioning.
  • Removed.
• The "Retail space" section is forward-looking as of 2011, from a 2014 source. Can this be updated?
  • Done.
• Some have suggested: best to avoid this sort of vague attribution.
  • It looks like this has been removed. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• The paragraph starting "On July 2012" is another example of excess detail that was probably useful in a past version of the article. The RFP dates were interesting in late 2012; now they're unnecessary. We can just say something like "In July 2012, the MTA requested proposals for a master lease for 65,000 square feet of retail and commercial space, including the Corbin Building and the Dey Street Passageway and headhouse." The other problem here is that this should be followed by what happened, rather than just stopping with the RFP. And the point about the reason for the name change to "Fulton Building" being given in the RFP was already made earlier in the article.
  • Done.
• Similar comments apply to the "Corbin Building" section -- "are being preserved", "will be integrated".
  • Done. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Second pass

Most points have been fixed, including all the minor issues, so I think it's worth starting a new section. Here's what I think is still an issue.

• The "Components" section still talks about the rehabilitation as if that were the center. I thought about suggesting that a Fulton Center reconstruction article be split from this, but although in some ways it would be beneficial I'm not sure there's enough information to require a split. The underlying point is that this article is about the Center, and the reconstruction really should be kept to a subsection, and shouldn't be front and center when we describe the state of the complex today. Imagine reading this in thirty years: you wouldn't expect to see "The major elements of the Fulton center include rehabilitation of...", would you?
• I still think the "Planning and cutbacks" section needs work. It's not so much that any specific piece of information is unnecessary; it's that the section consists of a long stream of consecutive scraps of information. Is there any source we can use to place these bits of information into the overall narrative of the planning and funding troubles? For example, if we could justify paragraphs starting like this, the reader would get a sense of the overall ebb and flow:

  Initially the project appeared to be securely funded. An environmental impact statement was released... Construction was set to begin... with funds thought to be secure because they came from...

  Problems began in 2005, with a cutback... Over the next three years, costs repeatedly increased, and delays in the planned completion accumulated ...

  These issues came to a head in 2008, when the MTA announced...

  The cutbacks also led to design changes and simplifications...

I'm (more or less) making this structure up, but I hope you can see what I'm getting it. I think telling it this way would make it more readable. I suspect in your mind it already has this narrative, because you know the story well, but it's not easy for a new reader to pick the narrative out of the details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well, now that you mention it, Fulton Center itself is actually both the renovation process and the completed project. The official website says On Sunday, November 9, 2014, the MTA unveiled the Fulton Center, located at the crossroads of Lower Manhattan on Broadway between John and Fulton Streets. and Prior to the Fulton Center project. I also reworded and smoothed out the "Planning and cutbacks" section, which I just wrote from scratch a few days ago, and I finished changing the tenses. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  The rewrite is definitely an improvement; just changing the lead-in sentences to the paragraphs really helps guide the reader. I think this is ready to promote now. The remaining use of the Tribeca Citizen is non-controversial so I'm not going to worry about it, but it would be good to replace if you ever find another source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  OK, I'll look harder for a replacement for the Tribeca Citizen source. Thank you for the review; I really appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)