# Talk:Park Avenue main line

The NYC DOT refers to the Murray Hill tunnel as the Park Avenue Tunnel.  For example:

...This trend is directly attributed to the unusual configuration of the intersection and its location at the terminus or “mouth” of the Park Avenue Tunnel, which runs under Park Avenue between East33rd and East 40th Streets. The tunnel serves two-way traffic with one lane in each direction. There is a posted height clearance of 8’–11” and trucks are prohibited in the tunnel. At the north leg of the intersection, the Park Avenue Tunnel emerges, severely limiting visibility for southbound Park Avenue traffic exiting the tunnel.[1].  
I don't thinks it's a "mistake" to refer to it as the Park Avenue Tunnel--Work permit (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I had pretty much decided the current nomenclature was correct, with PAT for the working rail tunnel and MHT for the road tunnel.  This is notwithstanding local popular usage, which I tend to shy away from, which is one of the reasons I'm happy to let people from the East Side or New Jersey or Venezuela or whatever decide on correct name for West Side places.
Then last weekend on my way to Brooklyn I parked my bike on Murray Hill and took a picture looking into the south end of the road tunnel, now illustrating that article which if you zoom in will show an official sign saying "Park Avenue Tunnel".  So yes, I'm coming around to the view that the name PAT belongs in Murray Hill, which leaves the question of what name to apply to the Upper East Side rail tunnel which apparently was built under a name which the tunnel built under the name of "Murray Hill Tunnel" now uses.  It's not a question of being able to find the correct tunnel since hatnotes and other usual Wiki mechanisms can handle that; it's just a pedantic question of getting it right.  Jim.henderson (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a more appropriate name (formal or common-use) for the UES one? Or are they both presently and most commonly called "PAT"? Those are what would dictate the name of the WP pages. If they're both "PAT", that's fine...we can use standard WP:MOSDAB solutions: call one "PAT (Upper East Side)" the other "PAT (Murray Hill)", or one "PAT (railroad)" the other "PAT (street)" or somesuch, with "PAT" itself as an agnostic table of contents for both of them. Given that "MHT" is the formal name for that tunnel (is that true?) using it as the name of its page is probably most appropriate. But moving the other one to a more specific (disambig'ed) title would also make sense since there are several things that are presently apparently-officially called "PAT" (and again leave "PAT" itself as a pure disambig page). See also Talk:Murray Hill Tunnel. 16:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The railway tunnel is known to local railway geeks as the PAT.  The MTA refers to it as the PAT. For example, in their latest captial budget [2] they plan for:
construction of the Park Avenue Tunnel and Viaduct Alarm system
As a native New Yorker, PAT is what I understood the name of the railway tunnel to be.   The roadway is certainly better known to New Yorkers and is also called the PAT.  The NYC Department of Transportation refers to the roadway as the PAT.  I'm not sure how much more wp:RS you can get then the DOT name for a NYC roadway.  And yes, there are roadway signs referring to the roadway as the PAT.  I never heard the term "Murray Hill Tunnel" until I read this article for Wikipedia.  More importantly, the NYC DOT DOESN'T use the term Murray hill tunnel when referring to the PAT.  So why does Wikipedia?  What makes Murray hill tunnel the official name for the roadway?  I think the simple answer is BOTH tunnels are known as the PAT.  As far as WP:MOSDAB it's more appropriate to call them "PAT (Roadway)" and "PAT (Railway)".  No one in New York (including the MTA or DOT) considers the differentiating factor it’s location. The differentiating factor is it's usage.  When you hear on the news that "the New Haven branch is running 10 minutes delays due to construction in the Park Avenue Tunnel", when the MTA is planning it's capital project, you know which tunnel they mean.  When you tell the cabbie "take the Park Avenue Tunnel", when the NYC DOT is planning on putting up guard rails to restrict pedestrian traffic, you also understand which tunnel is being referenced. --Work permit (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"PAT (roadway)" and "PAT (railway)" sounds pretty good then. FWIW, I did hear it called "MHT" when I lived in New York, but I think only in discussions of its bygone railroad era (which again supports present-day use as the disambiguator (if that's a word:). DMacks (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like we agree.  Murray Hill Tunnel get moved to Park Avenue Tunnel (roadway).  Park Avenue Tunnel gets moved to Park Avenue Tunnel (railway).  Murray Hill Tunnel then gets redirected to the roadway page.  Only open question.  Does Park Avenue Tunnel default to Park Avenue Tunnel (roadway) or is it it's own disambg page?--Work permit (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd go with a pure disambig page (least surprise, given that both are apparently "really"--depending on who's looking--called PAT and "the other one" is called something else entirely if it's even considered). Let's give a day or so before doing it for others to chime in? DMacks (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitely disambiguate it: [3] --NE2 05:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As a latecomer to this discussion, but the guy who took the picture of the tunnel entrance, I add my support for the renaming. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, I saw a report about the the construction of the IRT subway line (in a separate tunnel below the MHT (PAT roadway) describing that subway tunnel as "Murray Hill Tunnel" too:) DMacks (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I'd change is to use Railroad instead of Railway, as its the predominant U.S. usage, and this article is about a railroad tunnel in the U.S.. Also, the railroad that runs through it is called the Metro-North Railroad, so this isn't the case of a U.S. RR using the Commonwealth usage, either. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is concrete evidences of the NYC DOT usage (it is an official NYC DOT roadway information sign, photo taken outside Saks Fifth Avenue this weekend).Farmhouse121 (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Farmhouse121 (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should add a chapter on the Yorkville Tunnel, the predecessor to the Park Avenue Tunnel. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  23:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@DanTD: I drastically expanded the article in my sandbox and just moved it to the mainspace. I would appreciate your comments, and could use help creating a line description section. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: This Park Avenue LPC report may interest you. It's a historic district that covers buildings in the UES that were built after the Main Line was constructed. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I have looked at it in the past, but hadn't thought of using it. Thanks for the suggestion.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I think there may be some stuff in there that can be used to expand the Park Avenue article as well. epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius:I added a sentence more about the construction of mansions and high-end apartments. Do you have any advice on how to include information about the prestige of the corridor, and the patterns of development along it? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Kew Gardens 613, I think we should work inward - write a few paragraphs for the Park Avenue article, then write a summary of these paragraphs in this article. epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: That makes sense.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Do you have any advice on how best to expand the lead? I want to resolve as many of the issues that the article has before it gets taken up for review. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Kew Gardens 613, I guess you can add another history paragraph in the lead. Specifically, what were the impacts and how did the construction of the line affect service and development. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

.."The line runs in two parallel tunnels from 59th to 97th Streets, with each tunnel carrying two tracks.".. 
in this video [4] you can see that there are three tunnels.

one two-lane tunnel in the middle
and two single-lane tunnels to the right and left
-- Istiller (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Park Avenue main line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 21:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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: 


### More Comments
@Kew Gardens 613: and @Kingsif:, I need you guys professional help. I know the media are relevant to this article. Do you guys think this article needs more work or something?-- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

From a quick read, it could use a bit of clean-up, but overall it's a nice looking article. @Happypillsjr: would you like some pointers on where to start reviewing this? Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Sure -- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, well obviously some of the criteria are very objective: stability, copyright, and illustration is fairly objective. So, you can use the earwig copyvio tool, but should manually look through the comparisons to check that it's not a mirror site or showing lots of proper nouns that don't count as copyvio. For stability, you can check through the article's talk page and history to see if there's been any editing disputes recently. For illustration, it's a bit more complex; you have to determine if the article should have some form of illustration (images, audio/video, tables, infobox, etc.) and where it is appropriate, then see if it has those, see if they are helpful to the reader's understanding, and then check that they are all free use (commons) or fair use (not-free, hosted on wikipedia, but with good rationale for needing to be included).
For the other criteria, which are about the quality of the writing and coverage, a good sense of something being well-written is needed. To be a GA, an article must at least be easy to read and understand. If there are points of confusion, these need to be worked on. The grammar doesn't have to be perfect, a copyedit can be requested (if it's very bad, you can ask for it to be worked on first). There are different style guides for different subjects, and it's good to look at these when checking how well something is written. To check if something is neutral, see if you start developing an opinion of the subject as you read along - if you start to think of it as more bad or more good than when you started, it could well have non-neutral language. And for coverage, if you find yourself expecting more information than is given - or wonder why some information is in the article - then it's probably failing this criterion; with coverage, I find it best to ask the main editors unless I am sure something is missing or unnecessary - they likely have more expertise on the subject if they're willing to nominate it, and asking will facilitate discussion about the point of concern.
I encourage you to start reviewing - practice makes perfect! - but if you want a second opinion on anything within this article, feel free to ping me :)
Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I think it's best to find someone to take over this review nomination because I was told I should take a break from nominating or reviewing any articles for quality status. In the past, I nominated a few articles for GA status and even though none of these were up to GA criteria. I really think I should have a mentor that would help me improve an article first before nominating anything else.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 02:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Happypillsjr: That's cool - I've set the nomination to ask for another reviewer. If you keep watching this page, you could see how they do it. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


### Second Opinion
@Happypillsjr and Kingsif: Are you looking for a new reviewer or simply a second opinion on something. I'd be happy to review the article or provide a second opinion, whichever is needed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: A second reviewer, I think. Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I can do that, I'll get started on it in the next few days. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: You marked a statement on the article, namely Internally, the MTA designates the entire Park Avenue main line south of the Harlem Line's split as part of the Hudson Line., as unclear. What do you find to be unclear about it? Thanks for your help.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to save the related edit here! I'm not familiar with the New York rail lines, so the previous statement was that the Park Ave Main line splits into The Harlem Line and Hudson Line, but then this sentence seems to imply that after splitting into those lines, it's still the Park Ave main line? I'm just a little confused about what these splits and designations mean for where the "end" of the Park Ave line is. — Wug·a·po·des​ 14:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


### Wugapodes
#### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


#### Comments
If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

While interesting, the bit about the first rear-end collision breaks the flow of the paragraph. It almost reads like the extension of service was a result of the collision.
@Wugapodes: How would you suggest I change this?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613: I think either turning the two sentences on the collision into an explanatory footnote (using something like {{efn}}) or removing it. I think the paragraph flows better and makes more sense if the information about the extension immediately follows the sentence on the opening of the first section. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"At the time, Harlem was a small suburb of the city" It's not clear how this sentence relates to the rest of the paragraph; is this why the line hadn't yet extended to Harlem, or had it and this is just providing context?
@Wugapodes: It was intended to provide context.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph which begins "In 1875, the line was grade-separated and put in an open cut and a viaduct between Grand Central and the Harlem River to reduce pedestrian deaths and to increase speeds." is confusing. It seems out of chronological order, as it's talking about 1875, then goes back to 1872; and seems to be discussing the legislation that was discussed earlier in the section. Is this a mistake from previous versions or can it be clarified/explained?
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"In January 1876, a test case went on trial in New York Supreme Court" what came of it?
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"both of which were named after the railroad's president ("John Mason" and "President")" Earlier in the paragraph, John Mason was referred to as Vice-President. Obviously people can get promoted, but it took me a while to figure out what happened. It may be helpful to clarify. Perhaps something like "two horsecars---'John Mason' and 'President'---built by...both of which were named after John Mason who had become president earlier in the year."
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The section "street railway" only uses the acronym "NY&H" once, and very far from when it is defined. By the time readers get there, they've likely forgotten what it means (I did) and will be confused or have to go searching back through the article. If an acronym will be used, it should be used frequently or closer to the place it is defined.
 Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Should the names of trains be in italics?


#### Results
Sorry for the delay. I'm still working through the article. These are my comments in the meantime. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: No problem. I should have time to address these tomorrow. Thanks so much.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: In response to Should the names of trains be in italics? - the Metro-North lines aren't italicized, but the Amtrak trains are. epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Do you have any further comments on this nomination? epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Listed I thought I had passed this already! No more comments; looks very good. Thanks for the hard work everyone! — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)