Talk:Staten Island Tunnel

Staten Island Tunnel has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 17, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Staten Island Tunnel appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that at 10,400 feet (3,200 m), the Staten Island Tunnel would have been the world's longest tunnel, but it was abandoned after only 150 feet (46 m) of it had been built?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Staten Island Tunnel.

Wikipedia

Trains: Rapid transit Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 5, 2017

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

New York City: Public Transportation Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as High-importance).

The world's longest tunnel ???

How to reconcile the hook claim "... that at 10,400 feet (3,200 m), the Staten Island Tunnel would have been the world's longest tunnel, but it was abandoned after only 150 feet (46 m) of it had been built?" for a project first vented in 1888 with the Gotthard Tunnel 15.003 km (9.322 mi) long constructed from 1871 to 1881. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error report on Main Page Talk DYK section

Staten Island Tunnel claim of "would have been world's longest tunnel" IMHO erroneous. Project first discussed in 1888 but i.e. Gotthard Tunnel 15.003 km (9.322 mi) long finished in 1881. See also Severn Tunnel. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further info: Severn Tunnel 4 miles 624 yd (7,008 m) long, opened 1886, 2¼ miles (3.62 km) under river. Staten Island Tunnel with 10,400 feet (3,200 m) still not "world's longest underwater tunnel". For "longest underwater section" there is no length given in Staten Island Tunnel, hence no easy way out in salvaging the hook with a modification. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of 12:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC) KlausFoehl (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Would have been among the longest. Also the longest in the US at the time. Epic Genius (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Staten Island Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this review today. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coemgenus: Thank you for taking this review. Kylo Ren (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Overall

Stability and images are fine.

Lede

"State Senator Diane Savino was among the supporters of the tunnel, which, if built, would cost $3 billion and would improve quality of life for Staten Islanders, reduce traffic, and increase the attractiveness of the borough for investment." You should make it clear that this is Savino's opinion, not yours.
- Fixed.

Original plans

In the sentence beginning "The tunnel would have gone from Vanderbilt Avenue..." you have the same citation in the middle and at the end. Probably only need it once.
- Fixed.

Groundbreaking and stoppage of construction

You've got some one-sentence paragraphs that would be better combined with other paragraphs.
- Done.
On the other hand, some of the longer ones here might be better broken into shorter ones.
- Done.
"The plan was refused to be accepted by the Transit Commission and the Port Authority, which had its own plan." The passive voice makes this sentence is confusing. I think you mean the Transit Commission and the Port Authority each rejected the plan. Is that right?
- Yep. I've reworded accordingly.
"Since the plan would benefit the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Pennsylvania Railroad vehemently opposed to it..." The "vehemently" sounds a little POV, and it's probably more encyclopedic to leave it out.
- Fixed.
"Officially, the plan was delayed due to lack of funding,[2][18] and due to the desire by Hylan and Board of Transportation (BOT) Chairman John Delaney to secure freight service for the tunnel." The "Officially" suggests something unofficial as well. Was there? If so, is there something in a reliable source that speaks to this alternate reason?
- Fixed. I think Hylan and Delaney unofficially wanted some different proposal, so they pulled the funding.
The later sentences in that paragraph need to distinguish between the facts and the theories and, when theories are out there, make it clear who is doing the theorizing.
- Fixed.
This all looks good, just these few small fixes and I'll be happy to promote. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coemgenus: Thank you very much for doing the review. I believe I've fixed all the issues above. If you spot any more issues, please don't hesitate to tell me, though I'll also give the grammar a once-over myself as well. Thanks again, Kylo Ren (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That all looks good to me. I'm happy to promote. I read the Atlas Obscura article about this thing when it was published, and I've enjoyed the chance to learn more about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]