Jump to content

Talk:96th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

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

Express/Local configuration

[edit]

The current edit shows 157th St as the next express station on the Broadway-7th Avenue line. That is true for northbound trains at 96th St, although such trains could also go local at 137 or 145. But a southbound train at 157 cannot go express to 96, but must stop at 145. See track map.

Right now, this page is showing 157 as the next express stop, but the 157th St does not show 96 as the next express stop. This seems to me correct, since a train at 157 can't run express to 96. I've edited the 145th St page to show 96th St as the next express stop, since that's a service that could operate.

However, I haven't found a source that shows what actually was done when such a service was offered. Marc Shepherd 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 96th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 96th Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 96th Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 96th Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:96th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: Would one or both of you be able to work on this soon? I don't want to keep the review open for too long. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. Sure, I can work on it in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: Do you think you'll be able to finish the remaining items (mostly referencing issues) by the 31st? If not, I'll end the review for now, but I'd be happy to do a quick GA2 review later on. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look in a bit, but I haven't had much luck finding sources for the remaining points. For example, I haven't been able to find out info about the tiles installed in the 1950s renovation. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

[edit]

History

[edit]
  • Place the images properly in the text - right now they're awkwardly stacked on the right side and don't stay with the relevant prose.
  • I would change in which it would construct to under which it would construct
  • You can remove the "Service changes and station renovations" header, and change the level 4 headers to level 3.
  • I would clarify the significance of the 1908 opening - the previous paragraph says the subway opened in 1904, so this 1908 opening sounds like an extension.
  • I don't see a need to list the terminals of the post-1908 services; that's relevant to the services, not this station
    • The reason this was originally done (for this and for similar articles on the same line) is because, if I recall correctly, one of the other GANs brought up this very issue, i.e. when the 1/2/3 started operating. (This, too, will have to be mass-updated since the same text is used in 20+ articles.) Epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. I don't see it as necessary, but not an impediment to GA.
  • Consider switching the order of the first 2 paragraphs under "Early 20th century"
  • The details about the R series can be simplified; the change being due to rollsigns is again relevant to the service, not the station.
  • The paragraph about the 1964 changes is confusing. When did express service drop from 10 to 9 cars, and why were changes needed to go back to 10? When was the work completed? Were any changes made to 96th Street?
    • Basically, the 1958 changes only covered a portion of the line. Stations from Times Square to 96th Street could fit 10-car trains, but other stations (namely between Penn Station and Rector Street) could not. So in 1964, the stations from Penn Station to Rector Street also had their platforms lengthened. However, the third paragraph of this section, which discusses the completion of the 1958 changes, specifically says eight-car local trains began operation, even though the 96th Street station could fit more than eight cars. The problem was that other stations were too short for ten-car trains. Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single-sentence paragraph can probably be combined with the previous one.
  • Remove "state of the art" - that's basically weasel wording
  • exclamation mark  There's no mention of the beige tiles in the paragraph about the 1950s renovation, but the renovation section refers to it
  • This has now been removed (I still can't find evidence that beige tiles were installed in the renovation, so it had to be removed, though I'm 99% sure this is actually true). Epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ADA-accessible" is one of those phrases that gets used in govt and press works without any consideration of the actual meaning. Just "accessible" (wikilinked) is fine.
  • Which of the 94th Street entrances does the image show? It also seems chronologically out of order.
  • I recommend changing the next caption to Former fare control area on the now-closed Uptown side platform in 1978
  • Add date to the next caption (any photos in a history section should have the date)
  • Need details or rewording for "dangerous" - is that a public perception, an engineer's opinion, or the conclusion from a safety investigation?

Station layout

[edit]
[edit]

Citations

[edit]

All citation numbers here are accurate to this revision.

[edit]

Status query

[edit]

Pi.1415926535, Epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613, where does this nomination stand? As far as I can tell, the only edit Kew Gardens 613 has made in the course of this nomination is to remove a blank line from the article, leaving all the work to Epicgenius. (They've been pinged four times before, yet never responded here once, which is contrary to the expectations of nominators.) If you're satisfied that all the work will ultimately get done and you're willing to wait that long, Pi.1415926535, then you can certainly keep this review open. If there are intractable issues—sourcing that Epicgenius cannot find, for example—then it's absolutely within your remit to close this as unsuccessful. Another GAN was closed today due to Kew Gardens 613's lack of response; this has been an issue for past nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius has done a great job so far; there's only a handful of items remaining. I'm okay keeping the review open a few more days, since the article is so close. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset, Pi.1415926535, thanks for checking up on the nom. Sorry for keeping this on the backburner for so long, since I've been focused on other things. I can definitely take a look tomorrow, given how few issues there are left. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Just FYI, I've noted the four remaining items with exclamation mark  since it's a long list (of minor items - overall quality was high even beforehand). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks. I have now addressed all four of these issues. There are still some things that are missing (for example, an actual ref for the beige tiles in the 1958 renovations, which I removed rather than added a source for, or when the control house was removed), but they are relatively minor, so I can attempt to address these again. Epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, glad to finally pass this! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2024 96th Street train derailment

[edit]

Just a heads up that this page, currently a redirect, fairly passes NEVENT, but it will be draftified for further improvement. Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:96th_Street_station_(IRT_Broadway–Seventh_Avenue_Line)&oldid=1197114267"