# Talk:Queens–Midtown Tunnel

Shouldn't the name have a dash in it? --Voidvector 06:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In many lectures QMT means Quantum Mechanics Theory. I think this is much more important than the Queens Midtown Tunnel, and a redirect from QMT to this page is in my opinion not fair.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.132.9 (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 

Should we have a section talking about animal rights protest in a page about a tunnel? Maybe a link to the circus page where that comment can be made?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.7.185 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Queens–Midtown Tunnel. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110714215800/http://queens.ny1.com/content/top_stories/128942/queens-midtown-tunnel-marks-70th-birthday to http://queens.ny1.com/content/top_stories/128942/queens-midtown-tunnel-marks-70th-birthday
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 22:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I add the official QMT shield to the infobox? ---------User:DanTD (talk)  21:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@DanTD: Well, I moved the portal image downward when I expanded the page, so I guess there's room for the shield in the infobox now. epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Queens–Midtown Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


### Starting review
As this is one of the oldest GA nominees, I'll do the review. It is a rather large article so please bear with me. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


### Questions
On first reading, I'm concerned about the overall standard of English. For example, there are several instances of "however" being used to start a sentence. I'm making appropriate changes to these as I go along but some statements need to be checked by the authors and clarified in terms of their meaning.
Please explain the meaning of this sentence: "The status a corresponding limited-access expressway on the Manhattan side, connecting to the Lincoln Tunnel, was still undecided".


### On hold
In fact, despite having done several changes myself already and having highlighted the sentence above for clarification, I am seeing far too many examples of poor wording which renders the meaning unclear. Someone needs to work through the article and concentrate wholly upon its grammar and choice of wording. As it stands, it will fail GA criterion #1 which is: Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. 
I am placing the article on hold for seven days. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Thanks for the review, but I don't think that the article prose is as bad as you say it is. For instance, the example you just mentioned is an easily correctable typo. Could you provide some other examples of sentences you think need work? I'm going to look over the wording myself in the meantime. epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: All right, I've gone through and fixed some of the more blatant grammatical errors. Personally, I think the grammar is sufficient for a GA-quality article. I'm pretty sure that beginning a sentence with "However" isn't incorrect, and the article was pretty clear to begin with. epicgenius (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


### Review
@Epicgenius: thanks for attending to the points raised earlier. I'll do the full review now but it will take a few days, especially as I'm unavailable tomorrow – match day! I'll be using the GA criteria as follows:

Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. No longer any problems here and I'm happy with the prose, spelling and grammar. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I have just found the DrPda script which is a must-have, I think, and it confirms the readable prose size as 31kb which is fine. The lead section has three paragraphs, which is sufficient, and it provides a summary that is both readable and informative. The structure of the article is well set out and entirely complies with the standard. There is a single list, the historical tolls, which is fine and is comprehensively sourced too. The work is entirely factual and it doesn't say that something is "awesome" or "stunning". The article definitely complies with the MOS guidelines. 
Verifiable with no original research: contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. No original research as everything is sourced. The reflist is fine. 
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. Cannot see any sourcing problems. Considerable use of the New York Times and other contemporary newspapers. 
No original research. No evidence of original research given the extent of source usage. 
No copyright violations or plagiarism. No evidence of either. 
Broad in its coverage. Wide coverage but without unnecessary detail. I think the history has been well documented and I like the use of the contemporary newspapers. 
Neutral. No problems. 
Stable. No problems. 
Illustrated, if possible. Half a dozen relevant and useful images. 
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. All are definitely acceptable. 
Sorry this has all taken a bit longer than I would have liked but I'm well satisfied as the above comments show. The article passes GA and I'll do the necessary updates. Very well done. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)