Talk:1 (New York City Subway service)

message: Why are the addresses of the stations not listed on the maps?
In Washington, DC the Metro maps all list the address or intersection not just the street name.
There is most definitely a niche market for directories of street address of train and subway stations all over the US.
:I'm going to assume that you are referring to the MTA New York City Subway map. For one thing, stations in New York City do not have addresses, per se; most subway entrances are not part of buildings, but are in the middle of sidewalks. In addition, the subway map is already crowded enough as it is without having the intersection listed under every station. Each line on the map typically has the street it runs under/over noted (e.g., the IND Sixth Avenue Line has "6 Av" noted along its length); this is sufficient to identify the location of the great majority of stations. —Larry V 01:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addresses of stations 

message: If you have seen the shuttle station listings, I have reconfigured them. I will be doing the same to the regular subway service articles, starting with this one. The MTA does this with their information. (example). --imdanumber1 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station service listing 

message: I have reviewed this article against the Good Article (GA) criteria, and find that the article doesn't seem to meet one or more categories. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title.
#Well-written: Borderline - The #Service history section's paragraphing needs tidied up, but the article is (otherwise) readable.
#Factually accurate: Pass
#Broad: Pass
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Pass
#Well-referenced: Failed - The article cites no reliable sources (see WP:SELFPUB) - the only reference is to a myspace-style AOL Groups site.
#Images: Pass
My thanks to the lead editors for your hard work; please keep it up.
Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made (or alternatively seek a GA Review).
Regards, AGK 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Comments: This article is pretty good, but I don't feel it yet qualifies for 'good article' status for the following reasons:
* (1a) The Service History section is written in proseline, and it should be rewritten either as a timeline or, preferably, in paragraph-form.
* (3a) The article feels like it is lacking some information: the line opened in 1904, but when did construction begin, and why did city officials feel that there was a need to build this line?  In other words, give a brief history of the creation of the line -- this should probably have its own section.
* (3a) Beyond the service history, there must be other noteworthy information about the line: do nearby residents complain about the noise, does it operate 24-hours a day, are there insufficient trains, is service generally on-time?  Have any interesting/newsworthy events ever occured on the line?
* (2a) The inline-citations are pretty random; didn't all the information from the Service History section come from the same few sources?  Why are some lines cited, and some not?  Perhaps it would be better to simply remove the inline-cites (but do keep the reference section); or at the top or bottom of the section, write: References: , 
* (1b) One last minor point -- the pictures are a bit clunky, and should be reorganized slightly: one requires a frame, and they are misaligned (try putting their code at the very top of the section, so they will automatically line up, and perhaps move the two small bullet images to the left-hand side).
As I said, it's a decent article, but right now there is little to distinguish it from the 28 other subway services in New York.  When these issues have been addressed, feel free to resubmit the article for GA review!  --Xiaphias 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the Line by Line history page is not that its unreliable, it doesn't point to any primary, or even secondary sources. Eric B e-mailed me where he got them from, although it would make sense to put them onto the page. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it did cite sources, we'd preferably use those sources. --NE2 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nomination Failed

message: I have stumbled across these rollsigns and route number images at WikiCommons New York City Subway rollsigns, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or not, sorry if it isn't.
Alot of these appear to be gif bitmaps, when vector based images would serve a better purpose. As I have had an attempt at doing some myself that hasn't been entirely fruitful, I have since found out that Inkscape has a handy trace tool and would assume that this would make the task alot more straight forward to do. I'm just looking to see if others feel this is required & if these new versions would be an acceptable replacement to the exisiting ones. Following is an example of what I am proposing.
Thanks Rfsjim (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Keep the file name the same like the .GIF counterpart and see what you can do for the others. But bring up the suggestion to WT:NYCPT and see what the other members of the project think of the idea, as this article is within the WP:NYCPT scope. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 04:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City Subway rollsigns and Route Numbers 

message: A user named "The Legendary Ranger" removed content on this wikipage and that of the F Train stating that a number of peak trains terminate at terminals other than the regular terminals (at 137th Street instead of 242th Street and at Kings Highway instead of Coney Island, respectively). I understand that other lines have a similar situation (and I would certainly add that info to those articles later), but that fact does not make this "not notable", as was stated by in the comments section of the edit. A peak hour change of terminals that makes the line significantly shorter is certainly "notable" for the riders of the lines affected. A peak hour shortening of many trains on the line is no less notable than a peak hour extension of a line to a further terminal - yet, such peak hour extensions are mentioned in the wikiarticles of many lines such as for the B train (to Bedford Park), the A (to Rockaway Park), and the 5 (to Dyre Avenue). Also, please note that these peak hour shortening terminal changes are official and documented because they are on the official MTA timetables (see the links on the page) and are on the signs on the trains. Thus they are verifiable facts. They should not be removed without proper reason.
I welcome constructive commentary on this. I will put both statements back into the articles after a period of time if no proper reason is given for their removal. Thank you very much.
72.80.208.20 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak hour terminal edits 

message: Because the 1 operates a set of R62s, I believe that there should probably be a picture of that train operating on the 1. I mean, it's just my opinion, but I believe there should be at least one picture of all of the car models that each route operates. Does anyone agree? And if you are a photographer, could you upload a picture of that train and place it on this article? PS: Use Wikimedia Commons to upload. It's literally the easiest way to upload files.
--Davidng913 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  R62 1 Train Picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1 (New York City Subway service). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160825164246/http://gothamist.com/2005/05/25/the_number_9_trains_final_days.php to http://gothamist.com/2005/05/25/the_number_9_trains_final_days.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Personally, I would not have promoted this article to GA status as there are still several  tags on this page. I may get to these tomorrow.  Would you have time to resolve these tags after your finals? epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: AmericanAir88, I'm so very sorry for your loss. To answer your query, I do not understand how an article with any "citation needed" templates, much less four of them, could be passed as a GA; by definition, it does not meet the verifiability criteria listed in the Good Article criteria. I also don't think sufficient attention has been paid to the text. There are inconsistencies in how the train numbering is treated: mostly bold, but sometimes regular roman. The links to other routes are done in a haphazard fashion, rather than first usage. These should have been noted in a review as well. In terms of clarity and the 3b criteria (not going into unnecessary detail), I would have suggested reorganizing and condensing in the skip-stop paragraphs so that the goals were stated in the first paragraph rather than relegated to the fourth, and the material trimmed of some of the details, which were also somewhat repetitive over the many paragraphs. Aside from that, there's at least one contraction that should have been fixed, and some jargon that won't be understood by people unfamiliar with subway systems (for example, ); these all should have been noted in a review so they could have been dealt with. I always worry when the reviewer finds not a single typo or similar issue (unless I see they've done minor fixes themselves): an article without a single spelling or grammatical error is a rare bird indeed. So I think it's a good thing that the review has been reopened, and a more experienced reviewer will be checking things over. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

text: My condolences for your loss, and I hope everything gets better. In the meantime, Kew Gardens and I am both very busy throughout this week, but I might be able to tackle some of the issues that  and  have pointed out. These second opinions are much appreciated. epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I am so sorry about your loss. Like Epicgenius said, I am very busy at the moment. Once I get the work out of the way, I will tend to this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Having just read this section, I will also share my condolences. Take whatever time you need for this. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: I just realized that I have made an error for dozens of articles, having accidentally put the NY Times' ISSN in Daily News citations. According to WorldCat, it doesn't have an ISSN. Do you know if there is some way to determine all the articles that have this error so they can be fixed? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you remember if you put NY Daily News ISSNs with the nydailynews.com citations, newspapers.com citations, or both? In either case, we can search for "Daily News" and the ISSN 0362-4331, though this is not a foolproof method. epicgenius (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily News ISSN