# Talk:Sutphin Boulevard station (IND Queens Boulevard Line)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sutphin Boulevard station (IND Queens Boulevard Line)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi i will be taking this review. 1.02 editor (T/C) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: Thanks so much for taking the review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


### Comments
'Located at Sutphin Boulevard and Hillside Avenue' is it located between the two or at a junction between them?
It is located at the intersection of the two streets.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: Then i would suggest mentioning it in the lead. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Is it necessary to show the map of the whole US in the infobox? The other three maps portray the location of the station much better.
@Epicgenius: Any thoughts on this? I haven't done anything involving these maps, so I don't know what makes sense.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@1.02 editor and Kew Gardens 613: All of these stations are shown the same location within the larger US map and will be shown at nearly the same location in the New York (state) map. I will remove these. epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
'with the only major work left to be completed the final 200 feet (61 m) in the 169th Street terminal' I assume this is referring to the track? Please clarify.
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
In the exits subsection it mentions that the fare control area was gated off and there is a exit only turnstile. I'm curious how do people access the platforms now.
There are other fare control areas for passengers to access the platforms.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding note 1, I would prefer that the body also mentions the part about the line initially being served by 10 car trains.
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a citation needed tag in the In Popular Culture section.
@Acps110: You were the editor who initially added this to the article. I am going to hide this even though it is almost certainly the case, and if you find a citation for this, it can be unhidden.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: He hasn't edited for close to six years now (ironically, his last edits were to revert my edits). I think he has retired from the project permanently. epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: It is always worth a shot. People might be lurking.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that the station succession part of the infobox be replaced with a S-Line template
@1.02 editor: Why would you want to do that? This is how station succession is presented in subway articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I suggested that as the articles for many subway/metro systems also uses the template or a similar template and it reflects the succession of stations clearer than when mentioned in its current form. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The body is missing some information such as when did the E train become an limited express service
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Another thing that should be included in the body is the drop in passenger numbers due to the opening of the new station and a figure to show the drop would be nice if avaliable.
 Done I came across these figures in research I was doing over the summer. Thanks for reminding me to include them.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the construction subsection says that tracks were installed to 178 street but the terminus at that time was at 169 street. Please clarify this.
@1.02 editor: The terminal was at 169th Street, and tail tracks went to 178th Street. That is not relevant to this article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Was looking through similar reviews and found a comment on the bolding of train numbers. I would like to see the outcome of that discussion as it also affects this article.
@Epicgenius: Do you think we should remove them?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: Maybe. I think this should go hand-in-hand with removal of bolding on other stations' articles though. epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


### Hold
I have completed reviewing the article and there are some issues that need to be resolved first and i will be putting the article on hold for these issues to be resolved. I will give the article a second look in a while. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 16:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: Thanks for your review. I believe that I have dealt with all of these issues. I like thorough reviews, so if there is anything in the article that you feel needs to be addressed, or should be addressed, don't hesitate to mention it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: I have given the article a second look and have more comments on the article. I apologize if the initial review wasn't detailed enough. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@1.02 editor: Is there anything else that needs to be fixed?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
All concerns raised has been resolved and the article is ready to be a GA. There is one minor issue that still needs to be fixed but i wont hold the article back because of that. Please ensure that it is fixed asap. Passing. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)