Talk:Parsons Boulevard station

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Parsons Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Parsons Boulevard station (IND Queens Boulevard Line) → Parsons Boulevard station – unique name, no other station name repeated. owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 11:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Parsons Boulevard station/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:

talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]


Decided to take this review as well since i'm already doing the other one.

T/C) 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comments

Hold

The article is already of quite good quality but there are still a few concerns that I have raised. I have put the article on hold while these are addressed.

T/C) 12:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Is there anything else you would suggest I fix? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay but the article seems fine as of when i last looked through and all raised concerns have been resolved. Nice job with the articles in this topic. Passing.
T/C) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (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.

The result was: promoted by  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that a last-minute change in construction plans for the Parsons Boulevard station led to protests from a local organization and delayed the station's opening? Source: LI Daily Press 1, Daily Press 2
    • ALT1:... that plans for the New York City Subway's Parsons Boulevard station were changed at the last minute due to uncertainty about plans for the remainder of the line? Source: LI Daily Press 1
    • ALT1a:... that plans for the Parsons Boulevard station were changed at the last minute due to uncertainty about plans for the remainder of the subway line it was located on? Source: LI Daily Press 1

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article gained GA status on 25 September, and is plenty long enough. Both hook facts are appropriately cited inline to reliable online sources. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Good to go. Harrias talk 10:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harrias: Thanks for the review. I revised ALT1 so it was less confusing, but is only two bytes larger. Can you approve or disapprove ALT1a? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination was pulled from prep on October 29 when Gatoclass, who was checking the prep set in preparation to moving it to a queue, was unable to verify the hook. Gatoclass, is this still a problem? If so, which part of the ALT1 hook (which was the one promoted) is not verifiable? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BlueMoonset, quite frankly I am astonished that I forgot to reopen this nomination, as I spent a lot of time going through the refs trying to extract the facts. As I recall, I didn't like either of the alts as I felt they were a misstatement of the sources, while the original hook was misleading because it implies the protests caused the delay, which they did not. However, I will now have to go back through the references again to recheck - my apologies for not following this up earlier. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked this over again, I still can't see any support in the supplied sources for the statement that plans for Parson's Boulevard were changed at the last minute "because of uncertainty" about plans for the remainder of the line. The board simply decided to have Parson's Boulevard as the last express stop, there was also some uncertainty about how to complete the remainder of the line, but the two appear to be unrelated. Apart from that, the alt hooks quite frankly are pretty uninteresting anyway, and my objection to the original hook still stands. So I think a new hook will be required here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both are cited in the article. The first removes the implication that the station's specific construction was the cause of the delay. The second is a new tactic altogether (although ALT4 is sourced to an image citation, it is an official MTA document, otherwise this would be an offline source). epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have trimmed ALT3 as I think the juxtaposition of the two facts just doesn't work (and delays in construction are not very interesting anyway), so that I can verify both ALT3 and ALT4. My apologies once again Epicgenius for the initial failure to follow up on this, I spent quite a lot of time reviewing the article and making tweaks to it, somewhere amongst all that it must have slipped my mind that I hadn't actually reopened the nomination! Gatoclass (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't think either hook is interesting, and ALT4 should say "1988" instead of "1989". I think ALT4 could be salvaged with one additional factoid:
  • ALT5: ... that the 1988 opening of New York City's Archer Avenue lines, expected to lessen congestion at the Parsons Boulevard station, ended up slashing the latter's ridership figures in half? Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can go with ALT5. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing url

There is a missing url in reference 41. Also, I notice that the DYK nomination - or perhaps the GA above it? - appears to be incorrectly transcluded on this page, is there someone more familiar with the code than me who can fix it? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: I fixed the missing url issue.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parsons_Boulevard_station&oldid=1204542774"