Talk:75th Avenue station

75th Avenue station 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: December 16, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit / in New York City Low‑importance Trains Portal 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 Stations. This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit. This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance). New York City Low‑importance 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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stationreporter.net/ftrain.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nyctrackbook.com/Images/Updates/50.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y 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.—

Reviewer: Mackensen (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline .
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The station layout section is largely sourced to self-published sources. Station layout is observational based on images; but verifiable. There's still a citation needed tag present.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See 2b above, but I think that sort of observation is fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	See below. Addressed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most of the history section discusses the history of the line or the surrounding neighborhood and not the station itself. There's nothing about the station's construction until the platform lengthening. I think it's in-depth enough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .
	7. Overall assessment.

Hello Epicgenius (talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a blatant copyright infringement from subwaynut.com in the Station layout section: [1]. Two sentences were lifted word-for-word. It appears that this was introduced in July: [2]. This needs to be addressed and I'm concerned if there are other violations present. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Thanks for telling me. Apparently, it was also redundant information, so I've removed it. epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's another: There used to be a full mezzanine but the fare control is now in the center so there is no free crossover; this allows pedestrians to cross under Queens Boulevard freely. was added by Union Tpke 613 (talk · contribs) in 2013: [3]. Mackensen (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed that. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a day or two before I finish reading and source review. Happily I've obtained digital access to the New York Times. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for introducing those copyright violations. Thank you for bringing them to our attention. I realize that this is serious. Thank you again for helping out with a good article review. I have added some better references. Thanks again!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this; sorry for the delay. @Kew Gardens 613: does Proceedings from 1951 specify platform length? I realize it's a small point, but the source isn't accessible to me. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK. I don't have full access. I just use the search feature that gives small clippings. I am using this reference to support the claim that the bid went out in 1951, not the platform length. The platform length is implied to have been 660 feet as all IND cars were 60 feet long, and eleven of them would require a 660 foot-long platform.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note providing evidence that is indirect but still proves that the platforms are 660 feet long. If it really comes to it I could go to the station with measuring tape. I live one station away. :) Is there anything else that needs to be done?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still OR :). I've copy-edited a little. At most it sets a minimum, the platforms might well be longer. The explanatory footnote is fine. There's still an unaddressed citation needed tag; otherwise I think we're there. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with that citation needed tag.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're skating perilously close to original research in the station layout section. Are there any reliable sources discussing it, and in particular its original configuration? Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we're there. Sorry about the delays during this one. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: I want to thank you very much for this review. @Kew Gardens 613: Thank you as well for cleaning up the article for this GA nomination, in my absence. I really appreciate what both of you have done. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Thank you so much for the review, and for your help.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why the article has the same information in three different sections? The lede, station layout, and ridership sections all say the same thing, that the F train stops here at all times while the E stops here on nights and weekends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.79.199 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's excessive, but the lede should always summarize the main body of the article, so some repetition is inevitable. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151219102913/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150416/forest-hills/streets-with-2-names-cause-chronic-911-problems-official-says to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150416/forest-hills/streets-with-2-names-cause-chronic-911-problems-official-says

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.

• 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) 05:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]