A fact from Union Street station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
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
I have just modified one external link on Union Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Article is fairly short, but mostly fine. The article is suitably illustrated and does not have any copyright infringement. There are some issues that need to be fixed.
There should be some mention on the history of the station in the lead.
2018 is the latest stats available. The MTA usually makes the previous year's statistics available at the middle of the next year, i.e. June 2020 for the 2019 stats. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is 'peak direction' a thing? I have never heard of it before.
The start of the paragraph on the second renovation mentions southbound platform, but the end mentions 'brooklyn bound' and 'manhattan bound', please standardize.
Epicgenius I have questions about the reliability of the website subwaynut.com, it is clearly stated in the website that it is a blog and quoting the website 'This is a hobby website. as per WP:SPS, "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". Furthermore, some of the images cited cant be used as a reference for the statement, as in the case of ref 37 which dosent show a change in celing height to establish that it is lower than normal. Sorry if it seems like i'm nitpicking, but it would be better if the statements could be sourced by a more reliable source, same goes for other blog refrences. 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1.02 editor, no problem. Image sources may be used to cite obvious facts (like there is tiling on the platform), but for things like ceiling height, we do need another source. epicgenius (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1.02 editor: Due to the Jewish holiday of Passover and the Sabbath on Saturday, I won't be editing from tonight until Saturday night at the earliest. I wanted to let you know to make sure that you know that I am still committed to addressing the aforementioned issues.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1.02 editor: I think all of the issues mentioned so far have been addressed. Also, due to Passover, I won't be able to do any editing from tonight until Thursday evening at the earliest. I am still committed to addressing your concerns with the article. Thanks for your patience and stay safe. @Epicgenius: Thanks so much for helping out!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kew Gardens 613, no problem. @1.02 editor: Can I ask that you defer making the decision about whether to promote all the 4th Avenue Line pages until Thursday at the earliest? I would like to nominate these all as part of a single DYK. epicgenius (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: the reviews has been going on for quite a while already, how about i pass the 5 articles that i have reviewed first and the remainder at a later date? edit the issues on 77st and Bay Ridge ave articles have not been addressed yet so i cant pass those 2 articles. 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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]
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]
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?
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
Alt4 is approved --DannyS712 (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
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)