Talk:Staten Island Railway

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (June 2013)

What does this exactly mean? What can be done to fix this. I want to make this a really great page. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The editor who added the tags has a grand total of seven edits and hasn't edited since October 2013. They also didn't leave an edit summary explaining why they tagged this page, so if you feel the tags are no longer applicable, you should be safe to remove them. Conifer (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

SIR run by NYCTA.

See relevant discussion elsewhere Talk:List of New York City Subway stations#SIR separate from NYCTA. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have responded there. Epic Genius (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Previous copyright problem

Oanabay04 (talk · contribs) introduced significant copyright violations into this article in April 2013, copying from George Drury's Historical Guide to North American Railroads: [1]. This may be related to the tone issue referenced above. I've checked and it appears all the infringing text was removed through normal editing. Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

All the prose may still need to be checked, though, to make sure all copyright violations are removed.. Epic Genius (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New source

I've been reading the book "Staten Island Rapid Transit (Images of Rail)," by Marc Pitanza. The material in that book is worthy of source info for this article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Staten Island Railway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review shortly. I have contributed some minor edits to this article before, so I will try to be as impartial as possible in the review. Epic Genius (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is daunting, and some paragraphs and sections are quite long. Particularly distracting are the "Organization of the SIRT", "Expansion", and "1940s" sections. But these can be dealt with just by splitting up some paragraphs. Otherwise, fine. No plagiarism, as far as I can see. Grammatically, some sentences need punctuation improvements. They may also need to be broken up. For example: Under "Predecessor" section: When his competition had obtained the lease before him there was some discussion about it, and Vanderbilt, apparently through an "agent," James R. Robinson, erected a building to block the competition. should probably be split into two sentences. Ibid.: On February 1, 1860, the first passenger train, an inspection trip for stockholders and officials ran over the line from Vanderbilt's Landing to Eltingville. should have a comma after "officials." Under "Organization" section: Clarence T. Barrett, Henry P. Judah, and Theodore C. Vermilyen were appointed commissioners to appraise the value of the land required by the Staten Island Rapid Transit Company to extend the Staten Island Railroad from Vanderbilt's Landing to Tompkinsville. Were these three men commissioners, or were commissioners appointed to them? Ibid. State laws were not able to grant the right to run a railroad through the property of the United States, and as a result the grounds of the lighthouse department just above Tompkinsville, posed a serious barrier. There appears to be a missing comma (after "result") and an extra comma (after "Tompkinsville"). In fact, why not rewrite the sentence? Like this: and as a result, construction was hindered by the grounds of the lighthouse department just above Tompkinsville. Under "Late 20th century": On June 15, 1972, 17 year old "17-year-old" is hyphenated. Actually, it's spelled out. No matter, I fixed it. The article has a few sentences that sound like you're telling a story. It should be amended a little per WP:SUMMARY, i.e. making the whole article into the summary style that the majority of the article appears to be in. For instance: Under "1940s": The loss of life would have been higher, for only a few minutes before the fire started passengers from a train that arrived from Tottenville had just came and boarded the ferry boat Miss New York. should be removed, as it is inconsequential detail. Under "Early 20th century": By the 1910s, Staten Island was showing its shortcomings in handling B&O freight. Both Arlington and St. George Yards were choked with cars, many awaiting car float transport ... should be changed to By the 1910s, both Arlington and St. George Yards were at capacity, with cars at both yards awaiting car float transport ... In "Passenger": ADA compliant What's ADA? You should spell it out at the first mention. (I know what ADA is. Do other readers know what it is? They may not be railfans or disabled.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section: Per the manual of style, you may want to move references out of the lead. Body: Body sections are good. Paragraph style is okay, as the only parts of the article that are a list is in the "Industries serviced" section. You probably don't need to convert that into prose, since if you do that, you'll have one-sentence paragraphs. Words to watch Puffery: no instances found. Contentious labels: no instances found, as this is not potentially controversial. Unsupported attributions: no instances found, excluding unreferenced statements Expressions of doubt: no instances found. Editorializing: instances need to be fixed. In "Organization", you need to fix this: It was then that a clearly desperate Wiman offered to "canonize" George Law by naming the place "St. George." Law, humored by this, granted Wiman yet another option. "A clearly desperate" is not neutral. In "Predecessors", you need to fix this: Garner's tragic death. "Tragic" is not neutral. Synonyms for said: instances need to be fixed. In "Organization", you need to fix this: claimed that the Company had become "insolvent in September 1872, to have then surrendered its rights to others, and have failed to exercise those rights." Maybe "said" is more neutral" Fiction: No instances of fiction, so no problems there. Embedded lists: you may want to add some references to the "Stations" section. E.g. about the opening dates.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	According to WP:MOS, there is a reflist. All references are properly marked up.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	You may want to use Yadkard to fill out some of the references. REFLINKS doesn't work so well. Source 8, this one, isn't a reliable source per WP:OR. It is just an image. (You can put that as a note if you want. The statement, about how express service is marked on trains, doesn't seem to be that important, anyway. So {{efn}} should work for that purpose.) Same thing with sources 121 and 123–131. They are images, and aren't reliable Source 18, this source, is dead. Also, Flickr is not considered reliable, generally, though it's passable in a lower-quality article. As mentioned below, it is just a photo scan of a document.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Here is a list of statements that need sources: In "Late 20th century": In 1963, the railroad discontinued its ferry service between Tottenville and Perth Amboy Ferry Slip at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. In "Freight": The North Shore and Travis Branches saw freight service temporarily suspended beginning in 1991. Freight service along the Travis Branch and the westernmost portion of the North Shore Branch was restored by 2007. Along the remainder of the North Shore Branch, tracks and rail overpasses still exist in some places. In "Rolling stock": The New York City Subway's R211 order may have an option to replace the R44s. Until then, the R44s are undergoing another round of SMS to extend their usefulness until at least 2021. In "Restoration of the North Shore Branch": $4 million of federal funding was requested for a detailed feasibility study. In fares: The MetroCard statement is unsourced, but the MTA's official website would make a reliable source. In the station lists: maybe references for each station listing would be good. In "South Beach Branch": While the entire right of way has been redeveloped, most of the former right of way is still traceable on maps today. The Verrazano Narrows Bridge toll plaza sits on the former ROW. Also, This 4.1-mile (6.6 km) line left the Main Line at 40°37′08″N 74°04′18″W, south of the Clifton station, and lay to the east of the Main Line. But this is quite obvious, so maybe you can move an existing source to support that claim. In "Industries serviced": The listings need sources. In "Current use: Passenger": with even the possibility of through service between Arlington/Port Ivory and Tottenville, which the aforementioned Ballpark wye makes feasible (this did not exist prior to the 1953 discontinuance of passenger service on the North Shore Branch). Source?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of the Staten Island Railway are covered here. I have suggested spliting the "History" section into a new article, but otherwise, there are no major problems.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As I said, maybe you may want to split the "history" section into another article and then condense the summary to less than 5-10 kilobytes of prose. (This is optional for now, but it may become an issue should it ever go to FAC.) Otherwise, it doesn't go into unnecessary detail in any of the other sections.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No biases toward any particular groups. You may just need to change some of the narrative-like parts of this article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, etc. The article seems to have been modified by one main editor over the last couple of months.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Except for File:Staten Island Rapid Transit Police Patch.jpg, all images are freely licensed. File:Staten Island Rapid Transit Police Patch.jpg does not have a rationale for this article, so I removed it.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All of the captions are suitable for the images.
	7. Overall assessment.

Review comments

Any questions, comments, or concerns? Epic Genius (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I think you made really good points. Concerning the flickr links. Those are mostly pictures of documents. Is there anything I could do with those? Thanks. I have already started fixing the article. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The flickr links seem to be OK. You should probably write the title of the original document on the page, though. Epic Genius (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Have you been able to fix some of the remaining problems? Epic Genius (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I was able to fix some of them. I will fix more when I have a chance. I have to pick up my sister from a sleepover. Thanks again. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Cool. I've been unavailable for the past couple days because of a family reunion (sort of), but I'll mark some of these improvements down on the GA table. Your total contributions to this article are appreciated. Epic Genius (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, when I have more time I will do more. I hope the (sort of) family reunion is going well. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(It wasn't a family reunion. More like my mother's friends reunion. They've been together for several decades, and now one of them is moving to another place.) Alright, it looks like many of the problems are fixed. I'll look it over. Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: There is one unsourced statement left to go (see above), then I will pass this article. Epic Genius (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that all of the problems have been solved. If there is anything else that needs to be done, please tell me. Thanks again for your work. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Cool. Since all the problems have been fixed, I think I'll pass this article. Epic Genius (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Staten Island Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.stationreporter.net/sir.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Savino%20Staten%20Island%20Railway%20Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A class status

Could some editors help improve my article to get it to qualify for A class status? Thanks. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Here are the criteria: Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. Peer review may help. So maybe open up a peer review to get more feedback? epic genius (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyvios

I'm seeing entire sentences and paragraphs copied either verbatim or with very minor changes from multiple sources. Ref. 21 is particularly egregious, but I've also found copyvios from Ref. 7 and Ref. 9. @Kew Gardens 613: please have a look at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. You can't copy-paste text from copyrighted sources, even if you make small changes to it; you need to write in your own words. This article will need to be substantially rewritten if it is to retain its GA status. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please look at the following pages to help advise me on what needs to be changed specifically. I have fixed everything with the fist problematic source. My revisions are at User:Kew Gardens 613/sandbox. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, nearly every single sentence in the History section is a verbatim or near-verbatim copy-paste from the cited source. I've had to roll back the section to the last version that does not contain copyvios, which was 02:04, 15 December 2014. Kew Gardens 613, I'm really sorry to have to do this to you. You've done a lot of good work in identifying good sources on this topic, but you can't assemble an article from individual sentences copied from copyrighted sources. I hope that you can rewrite this article and return it to GA status. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Staten Island Railway/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The History section of this article was almost entirely an assemblage of sentences and paragraphs copied verbatim or almost verbatim from the cited sources, most of which are under copyright, thus failing GA criterion 1b, "respects copyright laws". The History section has been rolled back to an earlier state, which will need improvements, mainly in prose, to meet the GA criteria, though it's actually not all that far off. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. I was younger then, and I must have not realized the problems of doing what I did. As time passed I forgot that I did that. Thanks for noticing, and I will start cleaning it up. I am not mad at you, I am glad, as this will teach me how to be a better editor on Wikipedia.

My revisions will be made in my sandbox, User:Kew Gardens 613/sandbox. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Writing for Wikipedia does have sometimes-exacting standards that are different from those taught elsewhere. If anything, it's surprising that nobody caught this much earlier in your process of expanding this article, so that you could have avoided these issues altogether. I'll take another look once I get some free time. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maile

I had a skim through when searching for an alt DYK hook. This is a huge article, 69395 characters, 140,576 bytes. And my thought was that it is really confusing in the prose and needs a thorough copyedit. For instance:

• "Commodore Vanderbilt" appears unlinked as the financial backer, and we don't find out until the next paragraph that Commodore Vanderbilt is, in fact, Cornelius Vanderbilt, but unlinked wherever he appears.
• The first paragraph under History. 4 of the 6 sentences in the paragraph begin with "The line was", "The route was", "The charter was" and "The Staten Island Railway was"
• James R. Robinson is also mentioned as "Mr. Robinson", but not linked.
• William H. Vanderbilt is mentioned, but not linked. He would actually be William Henry Vanderbilt.
• Eltingville is not linked, so we don't know which Wikipedia article it refers to, but maybe it's Eltingville, Staten Island.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, I see very few links in this article, considering it's size. I don't think it's GA quality, and I think it could benefit from going through a detailed Peer Review. — Maile (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Note: I am the original reviewer. I am very embarrassed for not having caught this copyright violation (I did not have this tool handy at the time of review; otherwise, I would have put it on hold for longer). There are two sources that this article's history section seems to be based heavily on: http://jcrhs.org/B&O.html (82.1% probability of significant plagiarism) and http://northshoreprofile.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/history/ (45.9% probability). However, I don't think this article needs to be delisted. Since these are only two sources that seem to have been "almost significantly" plagiarized, I think a copy edit would help get this article back to non-plagiarism version. epic genius (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's a good thing we have DYK to give these a second look. I actually started going sentence by sentence and found that nearly every sentence was an exact or close copy of a sentence in the cited source. There were some sources that were "borrowed from" more heavily, such as the two you described, but often it was just one sentence pulled out in isolation. So just axing the text from those two sources wouldn't have solved the problem.

In any case, the article goes into much, much farther detail than is needed for GA purposes; I think it would actually be easier to pass if it were more concise. But given the author's willingness to revise the article, I think that once all the issues are cleared up it's likely that the GA status can be kept. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll start off by rephrasing anything that seems to be copied, starting with the first sentence of the History section, which seems to have been affected the most. epic genius (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Commentds by Kew Gardens 613

Thanks guys for notifying the problem to me. I want to fix the problems. What are the specific ways that the problems can be addressed. I think that I rewrote a good amount of the sentences. However, do I need to change them more? If specific help could be given it would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the article couldn't be tightened a bit. The prose is also kind of choppy, with each sentence jumping from detail to detail without coming together into an encyclopedia-style narrative. For this kind of writing it's more important to tell the story in a way that makes a coherent whole, referencing the sources as necessary, rather than trying to combine individual facts from different sources. One last thing, you don't have to put a ref for each sentence; if you have consecutive sentences using the same source, you can just have one ref on the last sentence (as long as you still have at least one per paragraph). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 08:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Antony–22

The biggest impediment to this article retaining GA status is the prose. The GA standard for prose is that it is "clear and concise", and the article as it stands needs improvement on both counts. Echoing my comments above, the history needs to be turned into a more coherent narrative, and some of the less important details should be omitted. I'd strongly suggest submitting this article to the Guild of Copy Editors once it's been confirmed that the copyright issues have been dealt with.

Alternatively, another route might be to split the history section into its own article, History of the Staten Island Railway, and then summarize the history here in about five or six paragraphs. That would be much less work right now, since there would be much less prose to deal with here, and you could take your time improving the new article to GA status as well. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Good job on the condensation. I think this article is the right length now. A couple of high-level organization items to fix:

• There are a lot of short one- or two-sentence paragraphs, making the prose choppy. These should be combined as appropriate into longer paragraphs.
• There are a bunch of short one- or two-paragraph sections. These should be combined into larger sections.
• I think "Route characteristics", "Personell", and "Fare" could be made subsections of the "Current use" section, since they're a bit short to stand on their own.
• The rail diagram currently in the "Stations" section ought to be part of the infobox at the top. The map currently in the infobox might be better moved down to "Current use".
• Is there a reason we need an oversized photograph of Clifton station? Is it special?
• "Former stations on closed lines" should be subsection of "Stations", and the main article template should be moved to the beginning of "Stations".
• "Industries serviced" shouldn't be its own subsection under former stations; the information should be integrated elsewhere in the article.

Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have done some of what you have requested. What do you mean by the main article template? Also, I don't know how to integrate the industries served into the article. Thanks for your work. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I just meant the {{Main}} template. I see that's been done already. Also, it might be better to have the information about the primary clients as a sentence in the subsection on each branch itself.

The article's getting close. I'm satisfied on 1b, 2abc, 3ab, 4, 5, and 6a. For images, I don't think that the New Dorp picture is terribly revealing. Perhaps it would be better to take that out and then look at the station articles or their Commons categories, and pick out your favorite three or four to illustrate the article. (On the other hand, the North Shore Branch photo is awesome for that section.) I'll be back in the next few days with some final prose suggestions. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, last batch of comments. This will pass once these are dealt with.

Lead

• The first paragraph says SIRT is "operated by the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority (SIRTOA)" but the second says it is "run by the New York City Transit Authority"; this needs to be clarified.
• "Staten Island light rail is planned for these corridors." Is this still current, or is it out of date?

History, 19th century

• In general, locations/stations should be wikilinked at their first mention.
• "as the Eltings and Anna Seguine, for whom the stations were named after, were influential..." seems redundant to state that the stations were named after them, perhaps change to "as their namesakes, the Eltings and Anna Seguine, were influential..."
• "Wiman offered to "canonize" him by naming the place "St. George." Law, humored by this, granted Wiman yet another option." is a close paraphrase.
• "after the SIRT filed for an Act of Congress" It's unclear what this means. Did they lobby for Congress to pass a law?
• "an Act of Congress authorizing the constructing a 500-foot (150 m) swing bridge over the Arthur Kill became a law" Grammar needs correcting; it would be clearer to say "Congress passed a law authorizing..." or even "Congress authorized..."

History, 20th century

• "The branch was cut back south of the bridge after the bridge was built." Unclear what this means; was the portion of the line south of the bridge removed?
• "...and was replaced by a state-of-the-art, 558 foot vertical lift bridge in 1959." New bridge should be wikilinked
• "The industrial track on the West Shore of Staten Island, the Travis Branch, which was built in the 1930s to Gulfport, was extended to serve a new Consolidated Edison power plant in Travis, along Staten Island's west shore." Sentence should be reworded to be more concise

Current use

• "The Main Line used to serve Nassau Smelting, the Staten Island Advance, and Pouch Terminal." Are these passenger or freight clients?
• The Freight subsection is really mostly about history, rather than current use; maybe some of it should be moved up to the History section.
• The final paragraph is a close paraphrase.

Future

• "The MTA broke ground on a new, $15.3 million, ADA compliant station..." It just feels odd for a section called "future" to begin with something that happened in the past. This could be reworded to talk about the future opening first.
• "The project has yet to receive funding" As of what year?

Branches and stations

• "RCB Ballpark (where the Staten Island Yankees play) passenger station" It's awkward to have the parenthetic phrase right in the middle of the station name. Perhaps replace with "passenger station for RCB Ballpark, where the Staten Island Yankees played"
• "is being discussed... as part of the Staten Island light rail plan" As of when? Is it still being discussed?
• West Shore Line subsection is a close paraphrase.

Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that I have corrected these problems. If there are any other things that need to be fixed, please notify me. Thanks so much for your work. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I am now satisfied that the GA criteria are met. Excellent work! I know this has taken a long time and a lot of effort, and I appreciate your perseverance and positive reaction to feedback. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

New Sources

https://books.google.com/books?id=0ZRYAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=staten+island+railway&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCTiWAWoVChMIxICNk62RyQIVRJseCh1EAAuA#v=snippet&q=railroad%20staten&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=1xFtQGUUaxYC&pg=PA37&dq=staten+island+railway&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBWoVChMI6siXhKmRyQIVQyweCh1kYA0f#v=onepage&q=staten%20island%20railway&f=false --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Staten Island Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://stationreporter.net/sirmain.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Staten Island Railway. 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/20150530063638/http://www.thethirdrail.net:80/0201/sirt1.html to http://thethirdrail.net/0201/sirt1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150228222845/http://1440.utu.org:80/UTU%5FWeb/ to http://1440.utu.org/UTU_Web/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mta.info/capitaldashboard/pdf/Milestones_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Staten Island Railway. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thethirdrail.net/0201/sirt1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150601011108/http://michaelminn.net/newyork/infrastructure/north_shore_railroad/north-shore-web.pdf to http://michaelminn.net/newyork/infrastructure/north_shore_railroad/north-shore-web.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.secretsi.com/2012/08/29/eltingville-celebrates-electrification-of-sirt-1925/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151006071458/http://www.zetlin.com/Images/NSAA%202010%20NL.pdf to http://www.zetlin.com/Images/NSAA%202010%20NL.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mta.info/news/stories/?story=24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212152719/http://www.thethirdrail.net/0201/index.html to http://www.thethirdrail.net/0201/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of Bommer

This has come up in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Staten Island Railway/archive1, but I didn't want to clutter that discussion. The Google Document, described as "History of the Staten Island Railway by Ed Bommer through correspondence", amounts to a self-published source. Such sources are allowed, if the author is a recognized expert in his or her field. A good example within railroading is Thomas Taber. He was a well-known independent researcher and pro-railroading activist. He self-published three volumes of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad which were reviewed in journals, are stocked in libraries, and are cited by other published authors.

I'm unfamiliar with Bommer. He's mentioned in the acknowledgements to the Arcadia Publishing book Staten Island Rapid Transit. That's a strong recommendation, although the author, Marc Pitanza, is not (so far as I know) a recognized expert in the field either. The source itself, a Google Doc based on correspondence between Bommer and an unidentified third party, is difficult to verify. What else do we know? Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mackensen: He has also written for the Sentinel, a publication of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Historical society.

http://www.industrialarchaeology.net/sian/images/sianv33/sianv331.pdf

https://www.borhs.org/magazine/unprotected/eSentinellow20121Q.pdf

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

https://archive.org/stream/BO_Modeler_V6_N4_2010_JulyAug#page/n1/mode/2up

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Concerning Pitanza, he had an article published in the December 2006 issue of Railpace News Magazine. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rail-Pace-News-Magazine-2006-December-Railpace-NS-F7s-Staten-isaldn-Rail-Parkers-/332605982247 Also, according to the back cover of the book "Since 2009, he has lectured extensively on the line and now presents a visual tour using images from the collections of New York's best rail photogrophers."

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

He has done a lot of railroad modeling work. The quality of his work is exemplified as it is used in the ARLINGTON COUNTY REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION FORM.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, Mackensen, and Epicgenius: There has been no response.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: Based on these, I wouldn't worry about this article passing a source review if it is re-nominated for featured status. epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Notes

@Epicgenius: The note I added was swiped from the Jefferson Avenue station article, but when I put it here, the last two references don't work. Is there a size limit of some sort for notes? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613: I took it out of list-defined reference format. It seems to work now. epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Six 24/7 mass-transit rail lines

..."and is one of only six 24/7 mass-transit rail lines in the United States; the others are the PATCO Speedline, the Red and Blue Lines of the Chicago "L", the PATH lines and the New York City Subway." So, a part of the Chicago "L" is counted as two lines, but the whole NYC Subway is counted as one. Is that correct? Vcohen (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe I never realized that error.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Blue Line (Staten Island Railway)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Blue Line (Staten Island Railway) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 1#Blue Line (Staten Island Railway) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"Blue Line (New York Staten Island Railway)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Blue Line (New York Staten Island Railway) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 9#Blue Line (New York Staten Island Railway) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ballpark

Shouldn't Ballpark be listen in the main line station page as it was rebuilt as part of the mainline? 2600:4040:9C71:F300:391E:C3D6:C2A5:295B (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not on the main line, but the stub remnant of the former North Shore Branch. The connection between that and the main line is a wye, so trains could go directly to it from the main line, but trains can't go to both the Ballpark and St George stations without reversing directions. oknazevad (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)