Template:Did you know nominations/Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)

Category:Passed DYK nominations from January 2018

:The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

==Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)==

{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)|Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)}}

... that there is a conspiracy theory about the presence of an abandoned subway station in New York City east of Euclid Avenue? Source: [https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/nyregion/tunnel-vision-next-stop-twilight-zone-a-k-a-76th-st-station.html NY Times]. "For decades, the station has been rumored to sit just to the east of the Euclid Avenue station, part of a grand, never-realized plan to continue the A line out to 229th Street in Cambria Heights, where the subway is now only a distant rumor."
ALT1:... that east of New York City's Euclid Avenue station, an additional, unbuilt subway station is rumored to exist? Source: NY Times.
ALT2:... that a four-stop extension of the New York City Subway to Euclid Avenue was mostly completed by 1942, but delayed until 1948 due to World War II-related material shortages? Source: [https://issuu.com/erausa/docs/2006-02-bulletin/2 Electric Railroader's Association] for 96% completion [https://www.newspapers.com/image/52882609/?terms=euclid%2Bpitkin%2Bsubway Brooklyn Daily Eagle] for opening date in 1948.

:* Reviewed: East Link Extension (Sound Transit)

:* Comment: ~~QPQ pending.~~ Also, the alts might not have the best wording. I am looking forward to any suggestions reviewers may have.

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk), Tdorante10 (talk), and Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 02:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC).

:*16px GA status has just been granted within limits and the article is long enough, properly sourced, neutral and avoids close-paraphrasing issues (Earwig peaks at 31.5% -- violation unlikely -- and the matches appear to be common phrases). The hooks are all properly sourced and within length. ALT2 is far too boringly factual, particularly in comparison to ALT0 and ALT1, which feed into the conspiracy theories of railfans and transit riders of all ages. I lan to ALT0 but either one of the two is fine. {{u|Epicgenius}}, please ping me when QPQ has been met as the nom is otherwise OK. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

::*{{re|Alansohn}} Thanks for the review. I agree that ALT0 is better than ALT1, and that both are better than ALT2. Anyway, I did a QPQ. epicgenius (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

:::*16px Good to go! Agreed re ALT0. Alansohn (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)