Template:Did you know nominations/IRT New Lots Line

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 SL93 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

IRT New Lots Line

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that steel contracts for New York City's New Lots Line were rejected, in part because the chief engineer hoped steel costs would go down?
  • ALT0a: ... that during the construction of New York City's New Lots Line, three bids for steel were rejected, in part because the chief engineer was banking on steel costs falling? Source: Times-Union 1916
  • ALT1:... that a shuttle train was used for two years to facilitate the completion of New York City's New Lots Line? Source: "IRT Brooklyn Line Opened 90 Years Ago". New York Division Bulletin. New York Division, Electric Railroaders' Association. 53 (9).
  • ALT2:... that construction of a third track on New York City's New Lots Line was denied because it was not specified in the legal routing of the line? Source: Public Service Commission

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pine Street
• Comment: More hooks pending

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 19:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC).

• Nominated within 7 days of receiving GA status. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. I think ALT0 is going to be interesting to a broad audience, but the source (footnote 15) does not verify any of the facts in this sentence in the article: Three bids were submitted, but the Chief Engineer recommended that they all be rejected, because he hoped that the price of steel would stop rising rapidly and instead start decreasing. Instead, it just says that the city stopped the bidding process because it found it could provide the steel more cheaply. Perhaps you found these details in a different source? Images in article are freely licensed. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Thanks for pointing that out. This source, p. 110, does support the allegation made in ALT0, that the Chief Engineer was betting on the price of steel to decrease. But the Times-Union page says that the city found a way to acquire steel at a lower price. I have rephrased the article and hook accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Thank you. I'm wondering if you could pep up the language in ALT0 (you could say "betting" or "banking" on steel prices falling), and also mention that three bids were rejected? I just think it needs more pizazz. Yoninah (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Thanks. I have modified ALT0 accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you. I'm going to suggest a tweak of ALT0a --
• ALT0b: ... that during contract bidding for structural steel for New York City's New Lots Line, all three bids were rejected partly because the chief engineer was banking on steel prices falling?

-- and since I've had too much input in the hook wording, I'd appreciate another editor signing off on this. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Approving Alt0b. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)