# Talk:103rd Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 103rd 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010102251/http://www.stationreporter.net/1train.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/1train.htm
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) 21:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:103rd Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 21:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.


### Infobox and lede
"started on" → "began on"


### History
Link first instance of New York City
I don't love the use of "in which it would construct" but I don't know the best way to rephrase
"to allow trains to be stored" → "to allow for train storage" to simplify phrasing


#### Construction and opening
No comma after "Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn"
"proposed lengthening the platforms"
What became of the contract to remove the original entrance? That thought seems to fizzle out a bit
"an compromise" → "a compromise"


#### Service changes and station renovations
Link the first instance of Columbia University and Morningside Heights
Why did skip-stop service end?


### Station layout
Citation needed tag needs to be addressed


#### Design
"original IRT, the station" → "original IRT, 103rd Street station"


#### Exits
Good


### In popular culture
Currently reads as trivia; if the station is integral to the Burroughs book, that should be expanded upon. I've seen Black Swan enough to know that mention is trivial


### References
Good


### General comments
Images look good and are relevant to the article
No stability concerns in the revision history
Copyvio score looks good, ignore the mirror site
Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 22:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

With no response from the nominator in seven days, as well as no response on their other GAN, I'm failing this one. Anyone is welcome to renominate at any time. — GhostRiver 21:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@GhostRiver: I know this review has been closed as failed, so sorry for the late response - I did not see this until just now. I can tidy up most of these relatively quickly and renominate it. Just a heads up if you're interested in reviewing again. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Epicgenius As you can tell from my uncharacteristic absence in getting to this, it may be difficult to get me to rereview as I continue to deal with health and personal issues. However, it's a short article, and even if I cannot rereview, I'm sure it will be picked up in short order. — GhostRiver 18:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:103rd Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 21:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll start this shortly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
All looks good now, so passing. Nice work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


### Infobox and lede
"Station code" appears to be a code used for behind-the-scenes systems like GTFS, rather than in common public use like Amtrak station codes. As such, it's not important enough to be in the infobox, which is for the most important information.
Hmm, you have a good point. Perhaps this parameter should just be disabled for all articles, which have the same problem. Epicgenius (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I would certainly support removing it from all NYCS articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Caption should be longer - something like The southbound platform at 103rd Street station in 2021
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hatnote no longer needed
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Lede is a little on the short side, though acceptable. I would merge the first and third paragraphs.
Currently, the lead follows the order in which the sections are presented in the body (the second paragraph is about history and the third is about the station layout). This is also the case in similar articles such as 79th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), 86th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), Cathedral Parkway–110th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), and 116th Street–Columbia University station. I'm not disagreeing with this suggestion - just saying that these articles also potentially have a similar issue regarding the layout of the lead. Epicgenius (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I prefer to have the station layout section before the history section - I think describing the station as it currently is should come before how it was - but that's a personal preference and not a requirement. Having the lede match the order is fine.


### History
Might be worth mentioning the East Side Branch splitting off just to the south.
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
...from 82nd Street to 104th Street... seems to imply that this was the northern end of cosntruction, but since it opened as far as 145th Street, that wasn't the case. Was 82nd to 104th just a certain contract?
Indeed, it was that contract, rather than the whole thing. My bad. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Were both platforms extended in 1948? If so, "extension" should be plural.
Yes. I've fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Was the 1969 contract actually carried out? If so, when?
Yes (there isn't an entrance in the middle of Broadway anymore), but I've yet to find references for when it was carried out. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'd recommend noting that it was carried out (even without a date) rather than leaving it hanging.
Some detail on the nature of the compromise would be good.
Unfortunately, the source doesn't elaborate beyond that. However, there have been several instances in which the LPC has made such compromises (for example, most of the interior of Grand Central Terminal's main building is a landmark, except for a shoe-shine stand). I'm not surprised that a compromise occurred, given how official landmark status severely restricts how a property owner could modify the appearance of their property. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


### Station layout
Per discussions at Wikiproject Trains, an HTML layout is not needed for a simple platform arrangement like this, especially with only a single service with no variation.
Right now, there's a stack of 6 images on the right sides - 3 from history, 3 from layout. Some of these need to be moved or eliminated so that they properly stay with the text and do not squeeze the citations.
I have fixed both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This section should only include current station details. The old platform lengths are not relevant in this section, and the details of the no-longer-extant control house and headhouse should be in the history section.
The old platform lengths are in this section because the section mentions platform extensions to the south of the original platforms. This is particularly relevant to the "Design" section where the platform extensions are mentioned as having a slightly different design from the original platforms. Without context, the detail of the platform extension looks out of place.As for the control house, you're right that it's not a current station detail. However, given that the history section talks more about events (as opposed to descriptions), I'm not sure that this subsection would fit there. Epicgenius (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, those are both fine. I do recommend two changes:
Rename section to "Entrances/exits"
Consistently use either "station house" or "control house" (preferably the former) - using both makes it sound like there were two separate buildings.
I have done both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


### Other
Archive link for the MTA neighborhood map (currently cite #50) is broke. I'd suggest replacing it with an archive.org link.
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Archived citations do not need accessdate
I'm not sure that this is a GAN requirement. This parameter is still useful as it determines when the source was originally accessed. Besides, InternetArchiveBot doesn't automatically remove the access dates when archiving links - I'd imagine that it would do so if the access date was truly unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Not required, and I won't insist on it. Per Help:Citation Style 1: It is not required for linked documents that do not change. To me, that would include any archived citation.
I see your point. I was focusing more on the sentence access-date [...] should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites. So if the "url" parameter of an archived citation becomes a dead link in the future, then a reader can verify that the original URL was live as of that access-date. For example, the citation "Our Subway Open: 150,000 Try It; Mayor McClellan Runs the First Official Train". The New York Times. October 28, 1904. p. 1. Archived from the original on December 13, 2021. Retrieved April 21, 2020. was live as of April 21, 2020, but it may be dead in the future. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources requiring subscription etc (like the Proquest cite) should be tagged as such
I have added these. It's worth noting that I cannot add the url-access parameter to the ProQuest source as there is nothing in the url parameter. Technically, the ProQuest link is only an identifier; thus, it is seen as a print source, not as an online source. Epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, that's annoying. Thanks for adding them the best you could.
Further reading doesn't seem very relevant - should either be cited in the prose, or removed
Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Not strictly required for GA, but I strongly encourage you to do with all articles especially GA etc: Add alt text for images. It's the #1 thing you can do as an editor to improve accessibility.
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)