Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AirTrain JFK/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 [1].
- Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free).
The article was passed as a Good Article in October 2017, and was nominated for Featured Article status back in June. However, based on the feedback there, the prose needed to be cleaned up, so it wasn't promoted. I think I have resolved these concerns, so I'm nominating it again. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback.
Also pinging @AmericanAir88, Dudley Miles, Jo-Jo Eumerus, SounderBruce, and Tony1:, who left comments in the previous Featured Article nomination. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I supported the previous nomination. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing changed in terms of images from the previous nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I supported the previous nomination as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Some of the details in the infobox, such as daily ridership, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
- I replaced with annual ridership. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- FN1 is incomplete
- Added pages, and publisher. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fn4: date doesn't match source. Same with FN129
- Fixed. One was manual error, another was a numbering typo in YMD format (02 instead of 01) that carried over when I standardized the dates. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fn5 is missing author. Same with FN100, 136
- Fixed.
- FN7 is missing agency
- Fixed.
- Same with FN10, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- I can't reach fultonhistory.com right now. I will check when I get the chance. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Same with FN10, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- FN10: not seeing that author at given source
- Whoops. Fixed.
- FN11: title doesn't match source. Same with FN93
- For #11, another whoops, another fixed.
- For #93, the titles for print and web versions were different. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- FN12 formatting doesn't match other sources and publication date is overprecise
- Fixed in {{Cite Routes Not Taken}}. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Date's fixed, formatting doesn't seem to be (now FN 17). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Date's fixed, formatting doesn't seem to be (now FN 17). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed in {{Cite Routes Not Taken}}. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Be consistent in when you include ISSN
- Fixed NYT without ISSN. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes - see for example FN105. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- That was the only instance without ISSN; it has now been fixed. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes - see for example FN105. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed NYT without ISSN. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- FN49 should use regular capitalization and should match format of FN36
- Fixed.
- FN74: author name doesn't match source
- That was an accident
. Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- That was an accident
- FN87: publisher shouldn't be italicized, and it's not clear what part of the source is being referred to
- Linked directly to report.
- FN88: Scribd should be in
|via=
- Fixed.
- FN89: source link is broken
- Archived.
- FN99: current author should be listed in
|publisher=
, and current publisher should be removed. FN102 should be formatted similarly- Fixed.
- FN101 is missing author and date. Same with FN119
- Fixed.
- Fn103 is missing date
- Fixed.
- FN131 appears to be a republication of FN130
- Fixed.
- How are you ordering the Bibliography, and how are you deciding what ends up there as opposed to in footnotes? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- The bibliography is alphabetical by author, or by publisher/title if author doesn't exist. A source is listed in the bibliography if different parts of the reference are cited at different points in the article. If it's the same one or two pages, I didn't put it in the bibliography. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Er... in the case of works without author, are you ordering by title, or by publisher? It doesn't make sense to do both at once. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: It is ordered by title. That's what is displayed first with the citation templates. This way, bibliography is in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Er... in the case of works without author, are you ordering by title, or by publisher? It doesn't make sense to do both at once. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- The bibliography is alphabetical by author, or by publisher/title if author doesn't exist. A source is listed in the bibliography if different parts of the reference are cited at different points in the article. If it's the same one or two pages, I didn't put it in the bibliography. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like the first few are still ordered by publisher though. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: OK, I have fixed it now. All entries are in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay - still some pending points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I looked at the Fulton History sources and don't see any missing agencies, including in footnote 10 (33d St. Terminal Picked for Kennedy Rail Link). Are there some specific examples I skipped over? epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay - still some pending points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: OK, I have fixed it now. All entries are in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like the first few are still ordered by publisher though. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review. I will resolve these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Replies above. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Pinging again, just in case. epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: The article has been extensively modified and some references have been removed. Could you look over the sources again, or indicate that you can't do so? I would appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- FN7: November 1967 was when the report was commissioned, not when it was published
- Be consistent in how you format Daily News articles
- FN78 should include corporate author
- FN82: AAP is the author
- Suggest making the Bibliography a bulleted list. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the quick response. I have addressed all of the above. epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the quick response. I have addressed all of the above. epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Taking a look now....comments below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There are alot of "proposal"s at the top of the History section. Recommend rewording to reduce....(e.g. just start section with 1968 plan)- @Casliber: I've removed the excessive repetition of the word "proposal", if that's what you meant. epicgenius (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any prose clangers outstanding..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Harry Mitchell
[edit]Oppose per 1a (prose, particularly flow), and 4 (summary style).
Extended commentary on prose and detail and line-by-line review, now resolved. —HJM
|
---|
Detailed comments, written as I've read through (as far as the System section)
4, summary style: I think big chunks of the history section need to be split off into sub-articles and then summarised in the main article, making use of {{main}} to point readers to further information. The history section, by itself, is over 4,000 words long and the density of it makes it hard going. It's very well-researched and you've done an excellent job of compiling all this information, but a lot of it is not important to the scheme as it currently operates. I'd suggest either creating individual articles for some of the schemes, or something like Background to AirTrain JFK, to house all the detail and briefly summarising it in this article. The average reader wants to know that various schemes were proposed and some were almost nearly built but it took ~35 years before anything really happened; they don't want 4,000 words of detail on all the different proposals (some will, and they can go to the sub-article(s) for that). 1a, prose: You have a lot of very short sentences in quick succession, one example, chosen because it nicely illustrates the problem The idea was for Jamaica to be re-envisioned as a "regional center", according to the RPA, since during the average weekday, 100,000 LIRR riders and 53,000 subway riders used stations in the core of Jamaica. A proposal calling for a 250-room hotel above the AirTrain terminal was canceled after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.[87] The Port Authority estimated that the AirTrain JFK would carry 12.4 million passengers a year.[87] The Jamaica station's renovation was completed in 2006, three years after the system opened. You have a series of sentences that don't flow into each other at all, they're just a list of facts. As noted above, you also overuse "this", often at the start of a sentence; a lot of these could be eliminating by merging sentences, which would also help with the flow. And look out for ", with" constructions and "however". You might find Tony's advice helpful. Sorry to oppose, but I've spent several a couple of hours reading this in detail and trying to provide constructive feedback. I hope it helps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: I combed through the article one more time, and made a few edits to reorganize grammar flow and reduce redundant words. I may look at it again tomorrow. In the meantime, could you see if my recent edits align with what you're looking for? I want to know if I'm heading down the right path. Thanks in advance. I do appreciate all the feedback because it's helping me become a better writer. epicgenius (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Revisiting. Apologies for the delay. I think we're pretty much there. you'e done a good job of tightening the prose. I have a few more detailed comments from reading through the second half, but they're all relatively minor and I envisage supporting once those are sorted:
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
|
You've dealt with the last of my specific comments and the article reads much better now. I'm impressed. You've made a lot of progress in a short turnaround time. I feel the featured article criteria are met now, so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@FAC coordinators: The image and source review are done, and the nomination has 4 supporters (including 2 who also supported the previous nomination). Is that sufficient? epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: I'm a little concerned by the prose still. I can see quite a few issues in the lead alone. It is quite difficult to understand in places and the prose isn't really quite up to scratch. I'm not recusing just yet, although I am very close to doing. Sarastro (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Bombardier Transportation operates AirTrain JFK under contract with the airport's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.": Not quite clear what this means. They run it with the Port Authority, or the Port Authority pays them to run it?
- "A railroad link to JFK Airport was first recommended in 1968, though until the 1990s, various plans surfaced to build a JFK Airport rail connection, though these were not carried out because of a lack of funding.": I've read this several times and can't understand it. At the very least, two "though"s in a sentence is not good. And I don't think the first "though" is quite the right word to use.
- "Meanwhile, the JFK Express subway service and shuttle buses provided an unpopular transport system to and around JFK. In-depth planning for a dedicated transport system at JFK began in 1990, but was ultimately cut back." I'm not too sure why we have "meanwhile" here; and what was cut back? The planning? Or do we mean that the scale of the project was cut back?
- "During construction, AirTrain JFK encountered several lawsuits, as well as a death during one of the system's test runs.": Do you encounter a lawsuit? And did the train have a lawsuit against it? Or do we mean someone else? And are we really equating lawsuits and deaths? Maybe something like "Among the problems experienced by [someone] during construction were a lawsuit and the death of [someone] during a test run of system".
- "Since then, several improvements have been proposed for AirTrain JFK, including an unbuilt extension to Manhattan.": As written, this looks like the proposal was for an unbuilt extension (i.e, an extension where the plan is to not built it, rather than a proposal for an extension which is not yet built.)
- "The AirTrain charges a $5 fare for all passengers entering or exiting at either Jamaica or Howard Beach, though passengers traveling within the airport can ride the system for free": Does the train charge? And we could cut "the system" here. And we have "passengers" twice in a sentence.
- "The AirTrain has consistently exceeded ridership projections since opening, and in 2017, the system had 7.66 million paying passengers and 12.6 million inter-terminal passengers." I think "these" would be better than "ridership" here, and we could cut "since opening". Also, I'm not sure we need a comma after 2017.
I think we need more eyes on this, particularly if these kind of problems are in the rest of the article. I wonder if Mike Christie could take a look? If not I will recuse and look further myself. Sarastro (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I can take a look; will read it now and add notes if I have time tonight. I have ridden the AirTrain many times, but am not knowledgeable about railways. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1 and Mike Christie: I've fixed the issues both of you have described. I think the lead is probably the part of the article that needs the most improvement, since it was created really hastily. epicgenius (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: I fixed all of the issues Mike raised and he has given his support below. Could you see if there are any other things that might still need to be changed after I made these edits? I would appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1 and Mike Christie: I've fixed the issues both of you have described. I think the lead is probably the part of the article that needs the most improvement, since it was created really hastily. epicgenius (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]Sarastro1's comments about the prose relate to the lead, and I see there's been some copyediting to the lead since his comments. I've been reading through the body and finding it in much better shape than the lead.
The high levels of complaints were not uniform to all community boards
: suggest "Not all community boards saw a high level of complaints".I don't think you need quotes around "boondoggle".By June 2003, a 50,000-square-foot (4,600 m2), 16-story building was being planned for Sutphin Boulevard across from the new station
: which station -- Howard Beach, or Jamaica? From the following sentence it appears to be Jamaica, but it should be clear before then.
I've read through to the end of the history section and that's all I have so far. I'll come back to the lead once I've read the whole article. More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It makes an additional stop at Lefferts Boulevard, which contains transfers to parking lot shuttle buses; the B15 bus to Brooklyn; and the limited-stop Q10 bus.
"Contains" isn't really the right word; you have to walk to those buses -- they're nearby, but not "in" the station in any sense. You might consider mentioning the long-term parking accessible from Lefferts Boulevard here too -- you do mention it later in the article, but this is the first mention of Lefferts Boulevard and it's the main use for the station. Not a requirement, as I say, because it is covered later.- I addressed the first point. However, it would be weird to say "transfers to short-term and long-term parking lot shuttle buses...". I'll think about it. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- What I meant was that most people get off at Lefferts Boulevard and walk to their car; it's in the middle of a giant parking lot. Yes, you can transfer, but if you're thinking like a user of the AirTrain, you go to Lefferts because it's in the parking lot where your car is, not to get on a shuttle. I think a reader of this article could be forgiven for not realizing that. The same applies to Howard Beach, in fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. I know about this already, and I mentioned it at the end of the paragraph.
The segment from Howard Beach to Federal Circle, which is about 1.8 miles (2.9 km) long, passes over the long-term and employee parking lots.
epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. I know about this already, and I mentioned it at the end of the paragraph.
- What I meant was that most people get off at Lefferts Boulevard and walk to their car; it's in the middle of a giant parking lot. Yes, you can transfer, but if you're thinking like a user of the AirTrain, you go to Lefferts because it's in the parking lot where your car is, not to get on a shuttle. I think a reader of this article could be forgiven for not realizing that. The same applies to Howard Beach, in fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I addressed the first point. However, it would be weird to say "transfers to short-term and long-term parking lot shuttle buses...". I'll think about it. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The Jamaica and Howard Beach stations are designed as "gateway stations", which are designed to give passengers the impression of entering the airport.
Two uses of "designed". In what we do they try to achieve "the impression of entering the airport"? I mostly use Lefferts Boulevard, and only occasionally go to Jamaica or Howard Beach, so perhaps I've forgotten, but I don't recall anything about the look of the platforms that matches this description.- The source doesn't say, but I am guessing that this is because these are the terminals of AirTrain JFK, where you have to pay to enter or exit. If you enter through Lefferts, then you get to skip the fare, since you're already in the airport
epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The source doesn't say, but I am guessing that this is because these are the terminals of AirTrain JFK, where you have to pay to enter or exit. If you enter through Lefferts, then you get to skip the fare, since you're already in the airport
The system consists of 6.3 miles (10.1 km) of single-track guideways and 3.2 miles (5.1 km) of double-track guideways.
Not really a prose question, but does "single-track guideway" mean a single-track for the trains? It's two tracks everywhere, isn't it? I recall seeing trains pass each other between Howard Beach and Lefferts Boulevard, for example.- Yes. The structures carry a single track. In those cases it's where there are two parallel elevated lines. Like this example. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The fare gates picture is tilted; I think it should be rotated a little anti-clockwise.
- I will deal with that later. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is it still the case that you have to pay if you leave the system at Howard Beach? It's been a year or two, but I don't recall paying the last time I parked at Howard Beach, though my memory is unreliable on this sort of thing.
- Yes. There are turnstiles to enter and exit AirTrain JFK, as well as turnstiles to enter the subway. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
similar to what is also used on
: perhaps "similar systems are used on" would flow more smoothly.- Done.
Each car is 57 feet 9 inches (17.60 m) long and 10 feet 2 inches (3.10 m) wide, with similar dimensions to rolling stock used on the New York City Subway's B Division.
"With" implies the introduction of new information, so it might be better to make this something like "...wide, which is similar to the dimensions of the rolling stock used on...".- Done.
Lead:
Various plans surfaced to build a JFK Airport rail connection until the 1990s, though these were not carried out because of a lack of funding.
"Various" is an exaggeration, isn't it? Looks like there were two: 1968 and 1987.- In the body, only these two are examined in detail, but the NY Times source mentions that there were 21 total. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The system wasn't "the subject of" a death; suggest making this "..., and a train operator died...".
- Fixed.
- You don't need "unbuilt" -- the sentence already says "proposed".
- Fixed.
- The 7.66 million number does not appear in the body of the article; presumably it should since it's in the lead.
- The exact figure does (7,655,901), but I rounded it. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support on prose; the points above are addressed. Epicgenius, I've left a note on one point but it's up to you if you think it's worth doing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing comment: OK, I think we're good to go now. Just one minor point, which I won't delay promotion over. The duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have a few and I can't see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.