# Talk:Staten Island Tunnel

How to reconcile the hook claim "... that at 10,400 feet (3,200 m), the Staten Island Tunnel would have been the world's longest tunnel, but it was abandoned after only 150 feet (46 m) of it had been built?" for a project first vented in 1888 with the Gotthard Tunnel 15.003 km (9.322 mi) long constructed from 1871 to 1881. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


### Error report on Main Page Talk DYK section
Staten Island Tunnel claim of "would have been world's longest tunnel" IMHO erroneous. Project first discussed in 1888 but i.e. Gotthard Tunnel 15.003 km (9.322 mi) long finished in 1881. See also Severn Tunnel. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Further info: Severn Tunnel 4 miles 624 yd (7,008 m) long, opened 1886, 2¼ miles (3.62 km) under river. Staten Island Tunnel with 10,400 feet (3,200 m) still not "world's longest underwater tunnel". For "longest underwater section" there is no length given in Staten Island Tunnel, hence no easy way out in salvaging the hook with a modification. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As of 12:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC) KlausFoehl (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Would have been among the longest. Also the longest in the US at the time. Epic Genius (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Staten Island Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll start this review today. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: Thank you for taking this review. Kylo Ren (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
Overall
Stability and images are fine.
Lede
"State Senator Diane Savino was among the supporters of the tunnel, which, if built, would cost $3 billion and would improve quality of life for Staten Islanders, reduce traffic, and increase the attractiveness of the borough for investment." You should make it clear that this is Savino's opinion, not yours.
 Fixed.
Original plans
In the sentence beginning "The tunnel would have gone from Vanderbilt Avenue..." you have the same citation in the middle and at the end. Probably only need it once.
 Fixed.
Groundbreaking and stoppage of construction
You've got some one-sentence paragraphs that would be better combined with other paragraphs.
 Done.
On the other hand, some of the longer ones here might be better broken into shorter ones.
 Done.
"The plan was refused to be accepted by the Transit Commission and the Port Authority, which had its own plan." The passive voice makes this sentence is confusing. I think you mean the Transit Commission and the Port Authority each rejected the plan. Is that right?
Yep. I've reworded accordingly.
"Since the plan would benefit the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Pennsylvania Railroad vehemently opposed to it..." The "vehemently" sounds a little POV, and it's probably more encyclopedic to leave it out.
 Fixed.
"Officially, the plan was delayed due to lack of funding,[2][18] and due to the desire by Hylan and Board of Transportation (BOT) Chairman John Delaney to secure freight service for the tunnel." The "Officially" suggests something unofficial as well. Was there? If so, is there something in a reliable source that speaks to this alternate reason?
 Fixed. I think Hylan and Delaney unofficially wanted some different proposal, so they pulled the funding.
The later sentences in that paragraph need to distinguish between the facts and the theories and, when theories are out there, make it clear who is doing the theorizing.
 Fixed.
This all looks good, just these few small fixes and I'll be happy to promote. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: Thank you very much for doing the review. I believe I've fixed all the issues above. If you spot any more issues, please don't hesitate to tell me, though I'll also give the grammar a once-over myself as well. Thanks again, Kylo Ren (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That all looks good to me. I'm happy to promote. I read the Atlas Obscura article about this thing when it was published, and I've enjoyed the chance to learn more about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)