# Talk:Grand Street station (IND Sixth Avenue Line)

During the public comment period for the SAS Environmental Impact Study, the MTA specifically disclaimed the rumor that there is an incomplete SAS station shell beyond the existing side platform walls. In addition, the chosen design for the SAS is to build the new station underneath the existing Grand Street station, not alongside it. All of this is quite easily verified at the MTA's SAS website[1]. Marc Shepherd 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the edit re: sharing platform and I was going by the nycsubway.org in the external links, and I believe the Lexington Avenue-63rd Street (New York City Subway) is using the same source. Anyway, fair enough on the revert - thank for the PDF link. Makes it crystal clear. Ytny 04:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
At Lexington-63rd the statement is true. Marc Shepherd 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I know that this is all correct, but do you know where it is in the FEIS that the MTA disclaimed that rumor? I'm just curious to see exactly what they said. Or was that something that was said out of print? Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 23, p. 23-24, response to Comment 51 (PDF here).
Makes for interesting reading, no? =) Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Not that I have photographic recall of everything in the FEIS, but I happened to remember that comment. Marc Shepherd 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually just emailed the MTA to send me a hard copy. *snickers* (Really, I did. I'm sick of reading the PDFs.) Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review. Took the liberty of adding a relevant project to the talk page based on other articles already at GA.

Lead: This is fine as a brief summary of some of the information in station layout, but currently doesn't cover the Second Avenue sub-section.
 Done.
Station layout: "supposedly designed" is catching my attention - are the sources unsure whether or not this was true?
Clarified that the 4-track, 2-platform design was the original intension.
Link Brooklyn
 Done.
Second Avenue: Three duplicate links in the first paragraph: IND Sixth Avenue Lines, Manhattan Bridge, and Second Avenue Subway.
 Done.
The link to cut and cover has a ".29" at the end, throwing off the link directly to the section. If the intention is not to link directly to the section within the Tunnel article, then modify the piping to remove the direct section link.
 Done.
References: Cite #1 has a different date format to the others
That's an unusual case in that it's used in other articles. But I'll do it.
Cite #2: I'd drop the nytimes.com bit and just have the source be The New York Times, which also needs to be in italics.
Cite #3: NYT needs to be in italics.
Cite #4: I'd do the same as the change to Cite #2 - however, if you're going to put (New York) in brackets afterwards, then you need to do that in Cite #1 as well. No italics here though.
Cite #6: Access date?
Cite #8: Currently a bit inaccurate. List the original publisher as the source and then add "via=Internet Archive". Internet Archive also shouldn't be in italics.
Cite #10: Date format different to others. Also the title of the source is wrong and lists the website there for some reason as well.
Cite #12, 13 and 14: NYT needs to be in italics.
Cite #16: Needs to match the formatting of #1 and #4, whatever that may be. Same with 21, 22 etc.
Cite #18, 19, 20: Need to be fully filled out to match your other citations.
Cite #29: Different date format.
For all of the above: Doing, since the citation order has changed drastically since the review.
 Done.
That's the lot. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look at those. Placing it on hold for the standard seven days. Miyagawa (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Thanks for the review. I'll look these over during the next few days. epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Miyagawa: I've fixed all the problems outlined. I also reformatted one of the references that was added since you reviewed it. Let me know what you think. epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Great. Regarding the date format - there's nothing wrong with using that particular date format, only that an article should all have dates in the same format. The only requirement here would be that since this is a NYC subway station, it should be an American date format, which it is. Anyway, it's all sort now and I'm happy to promote based on this meeting the criteria for GA. Miyagawa (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)