Jump to content

Talk:Grand Central Terminal/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to start this review - at a quick read it looks like a great article, but it is heavy so it could take a while! Great work, though. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Thanks for offering to take up this huge article. I'm going to ping @Ɱ, PointsofNoReturn, and Kew Gardens 613: as well. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the initial comments - I have a midterm test today, but will come back afterward. epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good luck! Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just took my test, so I'm able to respond now. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • 21.9 million visitors in 2013, excluding train and subway passengers has me confused - is this just people coming as tourism?
  • Is it "similarly named" or "similarly-named" in the MOS? (I assume you read it to write this very nice lead, but if not I'll check myself)
  • Is there a possible wikilink for "intercity trains" (some NYC transport article perhaps)?
    • Intercity train has its own article, so I linked that.
  • Saying that there are 30+26 tracks, and then 43 tracks are in use for passenger service; two dozen more serve as seems like bad math... I assume that there's some crossover between the 43 and 24, but the word "more" suggests otherwise? Any clarification?
Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 67 tracks in total. Only 56 contain platforms, while the other 11 are now storage tracks. Of these 56 tracks, 43 are in passenger service. :*There are 30 passenger tracks on the upper level, and 26 passenger tracks on the lower level (excluding storage tracks). If storage tracks were included, the counts for both levels would be higher. epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Services[edit]

  • The commuter part looks fine. If I were being demanding, I'd suggest that it might be clearer earlier on if the last sentence were above the list of lines, but I also can't think of a way to do that well and it's a tiny point.
  • In connecting services, the these routes in the first line could be 'the following routes', otherwise this part is clear.
  • In Former services:
    • Is the rather long list of train lines from Canadian to Sunset Limited really needed? (if so, there should be a comma after the last station, and perhaps it could be trimmed)
      • It's not actually long. If we listed all named trains (not even all trains) to utilize GCT, the list would be gigantic. So I listed major NY Central/Amtrak routes across the country, all long-lasting, famous, named trains, that utilize(d) Grand Central Terminal. ɱ (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A short explanation of the Empire Corridor could be useful (just "the cross-state route to Niagara" or something would suffice)
  • Planned services satisfactory.
Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interior[edit]

  • This is where the explanation of the two levels is given - the terms have been used earlier, but it's not hard to understand so I don't think there is need to move this up.
  • Calling the layout a 'scheme' seems a little unusual, but I can't think of anything better.
  • The first section on the Main Concourse is good - in the last paragraph of this the phrases "original to the station" and "original to the terminal" are used very close together; perhaps they could be made the same or changed a bit further, though not necessary.
  • Who has said that the brass clock may be Grand Central's most recognizable icon? Are they more certain?
  • There are two 'designers' listed separately - I assume the first was appearance and the second was function?
  • I don't think the urban legend needs to be in parentheses.
  • I feel that the sentence starting There have been five departure boards may fit better above the row of images
  • At Its walls and seven large transverse arches are of coursed ashlar travertine, perhaps a 'made' could be put before "of" - I automatically read 'of course' and was confused
  • "first floor" is also mentioned in the passageways part - perhaps this could link to the page Storey or the numbering section there; though the article is in AmEng, the US and Canada are the only places that use this scheme so it's possibly considerate to explain it for the rest of the world who assume it's not at ground level
  • Grand Central North part good.

Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would series of lockers need restoring? Perhaps their existence could be mentioned outside the list of 'issues'?
  • In the sentence starting An overpass between the main concourse, a bridge is mentioned - though I assume it's the same as the overpass, this could be clarified, maybe by saying 'this bridge' or repeating 'overpass'?
  • The lost and found part uses "it" to refer to ashes - should be 'them', or replace with something like 'the urn'?
  • Could link "Florentine" in the Campbell mention to Florence for clarification?
  • Should In 1966, the vacated studio space was converted to Vanderbilt Tennis Club not say 'converted into'?

Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its only remaining vestige is the storage yard under the Waldorf Astoria New York hotel built in 1931 also doesn't need parentheses.
  • At A new substation —the world's largest at the time — was the dashes should both be unspaced emdashes (i.e. "substation—the world's largest at the time—was")
  • In the sentence beginning "Occupying a four-story space...", is "footprint" the clearest word choice (especially since it's below ground)?
  • Tracks 12, 22, and 31 do not exist... - no need for parentheses.
  • Could be clearer what 'their' is at To their east sits the East Yard - perhaps change to "To the east of the passenger platforms..."?
  • It would be better to turn the first sentence of the second paragraph of 'Track distribution' (North of the East Yard is the Lex Yard, a secondary storage yard under the Waldorf Astoria Hotel that formerly served the power plant for Grand Central Terminal.) into two, with the split after 'Waldorf Astoria Hotel'.
  • In this same paragraph, passenger platforms are mentioned but it still seems to be referring to storage yards? Could this part be clarified?
  • The acronym LIRR should be introduced right after Long Island Rail Road.

Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Thanks, I have done all of these. epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture[edit]

  • Does Sylvain Salières have a page on French wikipedia that could be interlanguage linked?
Nope. ɱ (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally slated to measure... may read better to say "Originally intended..."
  • The hatnotes for the facade and ceiling don't match - which is alright, but could be altered.
Well the ceiling hatnote links to all details in full. The facade hatnote is different; the section here covers architectural elements of the facade and minor details on each of the artistic elements, while the hatnote is for further info on these artistic elements: the statue group, Vanderbilt statue, and clock adorning the facade. ɱ (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the iconography section really need to define acorns? It's very common, but could also simply be wikilinked.
Oak trees come up in that paragraph too, so I think without the clue in, people could miss the link between oaks and acorns, besides that they both are from trees. Perhaps could instead state something like that the Vanderbilt motto is accurate, but I don't know how to word that without it being awkward. ɱ (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related structures[edit]

  • Some of the viaduct information could be expanded - for example: did the western leg originally serve both northbound and southbound traffic? Is the sidewalk on the viaduct level, and which side?
Yes it used to be a two-way road, covered in the main article on the subject. The sidewalk on the viaduct is visible in Google Maps' street and satellite views, though I'm not sure if sources cover the details. There is a valet parking area/taxi dropoff area for the hotel on the side of the viaduct - this sidewalk continues to the southwest corner of the viaduct where the eagle statue is. Unfortunately there's no crosswalk or anything between the two sidewalk segments (left and right of the overpass) so it's near-impossible to cross during most times of the day - too much traffic. Does this help? ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: Some of this could be cleared up in the article if there's sources for the history? Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "post office station" correct? It's only called a post office throughout except this instance.
Likely meant to be "post office building", fixed. ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence of the subway part, "dubbed" seems too informal - the sentence works fine without it, so this word could be removed.

Kingsif (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ɱ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • The predecessors part discusses reaching capacity in the mid 1890s but then that expansions were made in 1885 - this could be correct, but equally one number could be a typo. It also disrupts the flow somewhat, especially when the next section is about hitting capacity again.
  • It then says something happened in 1908, and "later" Wilgus wrote a letter, but Wilgus expanded on this plan in 1903? It's very detailed, but could be stronger chronologically.
1908 was a deadline, not the date of something happening. The chronology is correct here. ɱ (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It mentions the final Amtrak train, but has not mentioned Amtrak before, it's a bit of a jolt. Amtrak could be mentioned earlier in the section.
Done. ɱ (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of the proposed MTA purchase leaves the reader hanging - did they buy it or not?
Epicgenius, not sure how you want to say it. ɱ (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes. I think it is now clear that the purchase was finalized. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innovations[edit]

  • As the terminal still exists, should the offered at the start not be "offers"? Or some other phrasing that establishes the facilities were deemed innovative at an earlier time than the present without being potentially misleading? Though the section does suggest that some of the innovations are still considered present (e.g. departure times), so present tense should suffice.
  • all types of travelers sounds strange, just "all travelers" should work fine.
    • Done.
  • The word "portion" is used several times, is 'area' not more common?
    • Fixed.
  • The air rights are mentioned; I think there's a discussion about this on the talk page, are there any updates on that?
  • The comment of the Helmsley building image could be expanded, perhaps to something like the one at History of Grand Central Terminal, to inform why it's included in this section (or move the image down to the subsection where it's mentioned)
    • Done.
  • The use of "either" in the constituent structures sub-section has a different tone to the information - it could be rephrased to use "both ... and" (not "either ... or")
    • That actually is the case here. However, the word "or" is pretty far into the phrase. ...either constructed the structures and rented them out, or sold the air rights to private developers who would construct their own buildings. Nevertheless, these long phrases are needed since they explain why there was one or the other. I have changed it now. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "razed" in ...part of Terminal City was gradually razed or reconstructed with steel-and-glass designs... referring to being burned flat, or some other definition? In either case, I feel it needs a wikilink or a wiktionary link for clarity.

Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency services[edit]

Art installations...[edit]

This is fine, but could be expanded a bit; if there are some notable examples, perhaps? Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

We could move the description to the "Name" section instead, but trust me it has been necessary. "Grand Central Station" is very well embedded in popular culture, even leading the original article creators here to create the page as "Grand Central Station". A clear note of the similarities and differences in the terms is needed, more than just the passive link to rail terminal. ɱ (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now have a vivid image of frustration at the name being changed to station, so thanks for the chuckle. However you want to do it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, in Linda Fairstein's fiction book Terminal City (which I started reading this week, and is set around the terminal), an entire page is devoted to one of the characters saying how it's actually a terminal and not a station. Actually, the characters spend multiple pages talking about the history and the terminal's features, but that's beside the point. The character in question was complaining that "Grand Central Station is the name of the IRT subway stop" (p. 170). Beside the point, but anyway, an interesting anecdote. epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the word 'billboard' because that usually has a connotation with lit outdoor ads. The NYT article, ref 86, has some reactions. I think the GCT history article can/should cover this, not this summary. ɱ (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration[edit]

  • Fantastic to have an up-to-date audio article
  • I'd turn the portal box in see also into a portalbar, but that's just my preference
  • Amazing selection of commons images - all used appropriately and often of the best quality
  • One non-free image used with appropriate rationale, and in a place where it is useful for coverage (Solari board)
  • A frankly beautiful infobox
  • Good use of interactive visual elements
  • There may be one too many images in the Vanderbilt Hall stack; the squash tournament doesn't necessarily need to be illustrated, and having three pushes into the Biltmore section and creates an image/text/image tunnel. This wouldn't stop me from promoting, but something for you guys to discuss?
    • Depends on the width of your screen. I personally find the three important enough to show, and don't mind sandwiching as much as many Wikipedians. Thinking of an alternative... ɱ (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The track map is also very nice, including an in-box legend as well as the link, compass and labels. I do have one genuine question: were the signal towers intended to be included in the map layout, since they're mentioned in the box?
  • Pass

Neutrality[edit]

Yeah, this is fine.

  • Pass

Stability[edit]

Verifiability[edit]

  • The refs could be reorganized into a more formal format - this is unnecessary for GA, but if you want to nom for FA it would be ideal (and also fits much better with a such a detailed article!)
  • Sources look good
  • A few refs could have their sources cleaned up a bit - "nbcnewyork.com" should just be "NBC New York", for example
  • The statement ...colloquially as the "Kissing Room". is missing its ref - it's the current [125] (Mann, Ted).
  • Everything else cited in-line
  • Lead follows ref guidelines
  • Pass (minor clean-up)

Copyright[edit]

  • Check seems clean
  • Good rationale for non-free image.
  • Pass

Overall[edit]

@Kingsif: Do you have any additional comments? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, went without Internet for a while! Kingsif (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

on hold This is looking great, and your updates are really timely! Putting on hold for responses to the last sections of comments, and I may go over the sources again, but it's very close now, thanks for the hard work, guys. Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius, PointsofNoReturn, and Ɱ: I've done a final source check; all the references work and give enough information, there is a wide variety of good reliable sources, and from a random spot check they all seem to be accurately sourcing the info in the article. With only the question on expanding the Art installations section left, I don't feel that's enough to hold it back from promotion. Great work! Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Central_Terminal/GA1&oldid=930670422"