# Talk:Euclid Avenue station (IND Fulton Street Line)

Excluding the lede, over half this article is devoted to covering 76th Street, which may or may not exist. It's a fascinating subject, but I'm not convinced that it belongs here. Euclid Avenue's only relationship to the topic is that it's the next station west. What about turning 76th Street (IND Fulton Street Line) into an article, or failing that merging a summary into IND Fulton Street Line? Mackensen (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I don't think we've ever written a stand-alone article about a station that was proposed but never completed. Most of the confirmed partially-built stations are adjacent to existing stations, such as South 4th Street, Houston Street−Second Avenue, Fulton Street−Utica Avenue and others. Those "ghost" stations were built as part of the existing station, and thus logically are in the article of the existing station. 76th Street is unique from those other stations in that it would have been a normal local station, and not part of a junction with another station that already exists. The only other station like it that I can think of is the proposed Northern Boulevard station of the IND 63rd Street Line, which is covered in the 21st Street–Queensbridge article; again, an unbuilt station with an infrastructure provision that is near a station that was completed. The difference is the extensive lore surrounding 76th Street. (Was it built? Was it partially built? Is the wall a false wall? Was it built and then forgotten and flooded? etc...) There is already a section in the Fulton Line article (Second System planned route) which discusses the extension that 76th Street would have been part of, and links to the 76th Street section of this article. I would argue that the information should stay here since Euclid is the next station west and the only existing station that would lead to 76th Street, and since the extensive trackwork that leads to the alleged 76th Street station is normally considered to be part of the Euclid Avenue station. Tdorante10 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
If this is in regards to the GA review, I've withdrawn the nomination for now. It does seem like the article needs a little more information on the Euclid Avenue station itself. I'll renominate it after the issue has been resolved. Also, the section about the proposed 76th Street station is in line with the sections about never-built extensions in the articles Tdorante10 noted above. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I think that this article is ready, but if you disagree, the GAN can be removed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
No, it's fine. Thanks for re-adding the GAN. epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street 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/20130313005345/http://www.stationreporter.net:80/ctrain.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/ctrain.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030103057/http://www.stationreporter.net/aleff.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/aleff.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113023917/http://www.stationreporter.net/arock.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/arock.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) 21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street 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/20150807065656/http://www.nyc.gov/html/mopd/downloads/pdf/accessibility_guide.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/mopd/downloads/pdf/accessibility_guide.pdf
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, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
On hold for 7 days (starting January 20/18) Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"During nights, this is the northern terminal for the Lefferts Boulevard shuttle from Ozone Park, Queens." - Is the shuttle a bus shuttle?
A shuttle train.
"Construction of the extension began in 1938" - Are 3 sources really necessary for just this?
I don't really see a problem with these citations. Generally, it's only considered overkill when it's 4 sources or more. I would bundle them, but it doesn't work for this case. I just left them as is for now. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I still feel that 3 sources indicating when construction began is overkill. As much as the guidelines say 4 is overkill, in this specific cases 3 still seems to high. What is the advantage to having all 3 of these sources?--Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
"Construction of the station was halted in December 1942, and the station remained an incomplete shell during World War II that could not be finished because of material shortages from the war effort." - The flow of this sentence could be improved. Maybe something like: "Construction of the station was halted in December 1942 due to material shortages caused by World War II. Throughout the war, the station remained an incomplete shell".
Done.
"At the time, the station was over 95 percent complete" - If this is the case was the station really a "shell". Maybe its just me but a "shell" implies that the concrete for the station walls, roof, and platform had been built but thats it. (This is just me being picky)
I clarified that the line itself was not completed. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
"...including a slightly different tile job" - change to "including slightly different tilling"
Done.
"This station has four tracks..." - change to "The station has four tracks..."
Done.
"This station has four tracks and two island platforms, and is the geographically easternmost" - Too many "and"'s.
Done.
The lead mentions that this station is an "express station" but the station layout mentions local tracks. What is an "express station" then (I figured it meant only express trains stopped at this station)?
Express stations mean that they serve express and local trains. It's a definition that is used around the city, and also by the MTA itself. I can't change this without changing the wording in every other express station's article.By definition of "express train", if the station were served by express trains only, it would be an "express-only station". More to the point, it would actually be a local station, and these trains would be local. I epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I was just asking for clarification on what the term meant. Thanks for clearing that up. :) --Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Ref 30 and 33 needs more information in its citation
I fixed ref 30 and removed ref 33 as a duplicate of the "LTV Squad" images. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Why does ref 23 have two citations? These should probably be split into their own references.
This is per WP:CITEBUNDLE. I was figuring out how to fix the too-many-references problem, so this is the solution epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
In the five+ years I've been on Wikipedia I didn't know this was even a thing. Now I know!--Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add an access date and publisher to ref 5
Done.
Some refs have access/publish dates like "9 October 2015" while others are "October 9, 2015". Please be consistent with the formatting.
Done.
For the last image in the article that shows the staircase at track level, I'm guessing the wall leading to the 76th station is behind the camera? Might be worth mentioning that since I found that picture interesting. If possible I think it would also be interesting to include a picture showing the wall or "backwards" signals (obviously only if there are images that are licensed appropriately).
There aren't such images yet because it's illegal to go there, and I don't think anyone who's going to risk their life will license their image as "some rights reserved". epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw a bunch of images on Google of the wall and therefore was just wondering if there was a chance that one of them would be licensed for Wikipedia. Oh well, not the end of the world.--Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Overall a very interesting read! After reading the section about 76th street I ended up Googling about it and my conclusion is that the station was partially built but then filled in after it was abandoned! Anyways, after the above issues are addressed, the shinny green symbol will be awarded! --Dom497 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dom497: I've fixed most of the issues you outlined. Going on a tangent, if you read the article by Joseph Brennan from Columbia University, it was an April Fool's hoax. This feeds off the station's cult status in the NYC railfan community, kind of like the Roswell UFO incident. To this day, no one knows what's behind the cinder block wall. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought the April Fools joke was just about the picture of a train being in the station? Anyways, per the other GAN review, I also missed the fact that the book references in this article need pages included within the citations.--Dom497 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I have removed the {{peacock term}} template, which was located near the phrase The track work is quite complex there. "Complex" was an objective statement used to describe no less than three sets of tracks. It's not in the list of examples at WP:PEACOCK, which describes words such as legendary, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique. But anyway, I replaced "quite complex" with "intricate" instead because that is definitely objective. epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks better. My issue was the use of "quite", which is definitely not befitting of a neutral encyclopedia. SounderBruce 22:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The caption on the image of the stairs says "This view is facing eastward toward the fake cinder block wall". Why is it fake? Is it fake cinder blocks? Or a fake wall? Or is it real? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: It's more accurate to call it a false wall or temporary wall. It is a real wall, but it was designed to be removed when construction of the Subway past the wall began. Or it was designed to (temporarily) hide the 76th Street station site, if you believe it was actually built. Tdorante10 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It was filled in with dirt past there. The water table level is high in this area, in this was a factor. I read an article in the BDE that showed such an issue between ENY and Euclid. I presume that construction started past there, but was stopped and filled in as a result.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This being the case, I recommend removing the word "fake". A cinder block wall is a cinder block wall, "I refute it thus!". Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: I've done that. I think the intended term was either "false wall" or "temporary wall" (as Tdorante10 said above), but obviously it's a wall and it's permanent (for now, I guess, unless the FBI decides to investigate it). epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)