This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 (New York City Subway service) was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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.
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)
Comments: This article is pretty good, but I don't feel it yet qualifies for 'good article' status for the following reasons:
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)
(3a) should be handled by a link to original IRT subway. With (2a), the problem is that the main source is the unreliable "line by line history" site. There are maps and newspaper articles that can be used; I'll have a go at it eventually. -- NE2 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have protected the page given the ongoing revert war. I would remind both parties of WP:3RR and WP:NPA. If you have issues over the content, you should be discussing them on this talk page. If you cannot reach consensus, then you should seek dispute resolution. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever is done with the disambiguation redirect, we need to note that a few pages exist at similar names:
BMT 6,
BMT 12,
BMT 13. --
NE2 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the history, the text was originally rewritten by NE2, then " cleaned up" by Imdanumber1, and then NE2 reverted some redirect changes, which sparked the edit war.
Here is my opinion on NE2's decision to revert in order to reinsert redirects in this article (the third link of the above)--Presented as "(NE2's version) -> (Imdanumber1's version)", I either agree with NE2's reversion of a particular link, or disagree:
However, I also see that because "IRT" is implied throughout the article unless indicated otherwise, NE2 tried to reduce redundancies of "IRT". So the links probably should have been piped instead of forced redirects. So take my opinion, or leave it, please. Tinlinkin 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have altered the disambiguation RDR at the top of the page to comport with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_7#BMT service article name changes.
If any further improvements are desired, please edit the page in the normal way, and make each change in a thoughtful way. Repeatedly reverting and re-reverting each other's edits will simply lead to the page being protected again, and could easily result in sanctions for either or both of the offending parties. Marc Shepherd 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Good morning. A good article review is taking place at Wikipedia:Good article review#1 (New York City Subway service). All are invited to discuss at the nomination page. Thank you. — Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs • email) 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Good morning. I am the same user as 72.80.208.20. It appears that the consensus is that the "Connections" column is the best location to enter the peak hour terminal changes. I have now entered all peak hour route shortenings that occur more than 2 or 3 times daily - except for the L train and the 2 train, whose pages are both currently locked. I have avoided entering the truly rare cases that occur only 2 or 3 or even once daily (such as for the D train at 145th street instead of at 206th street - there is only 1 such train daily that starts at there and only 2 that terminate there daily). I hope that this is a reasonable approach. As always, constructive comments and suggestions are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.190.102 ( talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dom497 ( talk · contribs) 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Will begin review shortly. :) -- Dom497 ( talk) 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Will continue later.-- Dom497 ( talk) 00:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Dom497: Thank you for taking this on. AmericanAir88( talk) 17:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Happypillsjr ( talk · contribs) 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This my first time review, comments to follow - I've been reading the article but there are grammar and sentences that needs to be fixed. :)-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Hello @ AmericanAir88:, I am concerned with this nomination which you have selected because apparently there's a copyright violation. So I would consider is fail this nomation.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Since there's no evidence of a copyright violation then it is best that I can pass this nomination.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, after a request by Epicgenius, I've come to offer some comments - I've previously reviewed other articles for GA by the main editors, so I think we can work productively on this! Pinging @ AmericanAir88, BlueMoonset, Epicgenius, and Kew Gardens 613: Kingsif ( talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
There was both local and express service with express trains using the express tracks south of 96th Street.is a bit cumbersome; it is possible to expand this into more, shorter, sentences for readability?
...242nd Street to between New Lots and Flatbush Avenues late nights. No trains operated for late night service- could this be explained better?
...run between 242nd Street and South Ferry all timesbe "at all times" or is just "all times" common use for the topic?
As part of the study that resulted in the skip-stop plan, the NYCTA studied using the center track for express service, but settled on skip-stop service because the center track does not extend for the whole line.could be written better, perhaps expanded?
However, the agency settled on skip-stop service because the center track existed in two discontinuous segments, which would require complicated track-switching maneuvers to accommodate the express trains. epicgenius ( talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Most passengers would not have to wait longer for a train because, previously, a third of 1 trains had terminated at 137th Streetbe explained - the relationship between not waiting longer and different train routes could be better explained.
The previous headway for stations north of there ...- headway can be wikilinked and 'there' is a little informal - I see it as referring to 137th Street, but 'this station' would be more wikistyle
On July 1988, it was announced that 1/9 skip-stop service would begin...- shouldn't it be In July ... that the 1/9...?
A public hearing on the NYCTA's plan...) is also very bulky and could be broken up; especially with things like the analysis before 1988, this could be put earlier. I also think some of the information in the first half of it is a repeat of things that have been said before, but rephrased and mashed together. This paragraph is probably the weakest writing style-wise, too.
When that was cleared by September 17...is a grammatical anomaly.
New York City Transit was considering eliminating 9 and skip-stop service due to long wait times, and as a result of a decrease in the number of riders benefiting- surely the longer wait time is why fewer people benefited, but it's a run-on with a structure that's hard to follow
It planned on making a decision in the summeris needed, but it can be kept with the sentence written to flow better
Kingsif, epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613, where does this stand? It's been over a month and a half since the most recent posts here; have the citation issues been addressed? (There are still three "citation needed" tags, all of which involve the 1950s (one starts in 1949). Are there any others outstanding? Can we get this wrapped up soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to close (and fail) this for now, since there hasn't been significant work in a few weeks, and none at all in 10 days. However, all that I feel is left to be resolved are a few heavy paragraphs and some missing citations. It's otherwise a nice article. So, this is a fail without prejudice, in part to give the nominator(s) some pressure-free time to work on it, and I'll be happy to revisit when it gets put up for GAN again (hopefully soon!) @ Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: If you want any help, let me know :) Kingsif ( talk) 23:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I would not have promoted this article to GA status as there are still several {{ citation needed}} tags on this page. I may get to these tomorrow. @ Kew Gardens 613: Would you have time to resolve these tags after your finals? epicgenius ( talk) 15:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Epicgenius: and @ Kew Gardens 613:. I have no idea how this passed. I have not been able to tend to the issues as I am currently mourning a sudden death that occurred in my family. Even before that, I had a "busy" tag on my talk page as other off-wiki things were occurring. @ BlueMoonset: What do you think about Happypills review? We have worked with the user in the past and they have some troubling history with GA. AmericanAir88( talk) 16:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
running on 12-minute headways); 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)
@ Epicgenius: 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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 (New York City Subway service) was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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.
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)
Comments: This article is pretty good, but I don't feel it yet qualifies for 'good article' status for the following reasons:
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)
(3a) should be handled by a link to original IRT subway. With (2a), the problem is that the main source is the unreliable "line by line history" site. There are maps and newspaper articles that can be used; I'll have a go at it eventually. -- NE2 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have protected the page given the ongoing revert war. I would remind both parties of WP:3RR and WP:NPA. If you have issues over the content, you should be discussing them on this talk page. If you cannot reach consensus, then you should seek dispute resolution. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever is done with the disambiguation redirect, we need to note that a few pages exist at similar names:
BMT 6,
BMT 12,
BMT 13. --
NE2 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the history, the text was originally rewritten by NE2, then " cleaned up" by Imdanumber1, and then NE2 reverted some redirect changes, which sparked the edit war.
Here is my opinion on NE2's decision to revert in order to reinsert redirects in this article (the third link of the above)--Presented as "(NE2's version) -> (Imdanumber1's version)", I either agree with NE2's reversion of a particular link, or disagree:
However, I also see that because "IRT" is implied throughout the article unless indicated otherwise, NE2 tried to reduce redundancies of "IRT". So the links probably should have been piped instead of forced redirects. So take my opinion, or leave it, please. Tinlinkin 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have altered the disambiguation RDR at the top of the page to comport with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/Archive_7#BMT service article name changes.
If any further improvements are desired, please edit the page in the normal way, and make each change in a thoughtful way. Repeatedly reverting and re-reverting each other's edits will simply lead to the page being protected again, and could easily result in sanctions for either or both of the offending parties. Marc Shepherd 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Good morning. A good article review is taking place at Wikipedia:Good article review#1 (New York City Subway service). All are invited to discuss at the nomination page. Thank you. — Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs • email) 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Good morning. I am the same user as 72.80.208.20. It appears that the consensus is that the "Connections" column is the best location to enter the peak hour terminal changes. I have now entered all peak hour route shortenings that occur more than 2 or 3 times daily - except for the L train and the 2 train, whose pages are both currently locked. I have avoided entering the truly rare cases that occur only 2 or 3 or even once daily (such as for the D train at 145th street instead of at 206th street - there is only 1 such train daily that starts at there and only 2 that terminate there daily). I hope that this is a reasonable approach. As always, constructive comments and suggestions are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.190.102 ( talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dom497 ( talk · contribs) 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Will begin review shortly. :) -- Dom497 ( talk) 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Will continue later.-- Dom497 ( talk) 00:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Dom497: Thank you for taking this on. AmericanAir88( talk) 17:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Happypillsjr ( talk · contribs) 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This my first time review, comments to follow - I've been reading the article but there are grammar and sentences that needs to be fixed. :)-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Hello @ AmericanAir88:, I am concerned with this nomination which you have selected because apparently there's a copyright violation. So I would consider is fail this nomation.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Since there's no evidence of a copyright violation then it is best that I can pass this nomination.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, after a request by Epicgenius, I've come to offer some comments - I've previously reviewed other articles for GA by the main editors, so I think we can work productively on this! Pinging @ AmericanAir88, BlueMoonset, Epicgenius, and Kew Gardens 613: Kingsif ( talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
There was both local and express service with express trains using the express tracks south of 96th Street.is a bit cumbersome; it is possible to expand this into more, shorter, sentences for readability?
...242nd Street to between New Lots and Flatbush Avenues late nights. No trains operated for late night service- could this be explained better?
...run between 242nd Street and South Ferry all timesbe "at all times" or is just "all times" common use for the topic?
As part of the study that resulted in the skip-stop plan, the NYCTA studied using the center track for express service, but settled on skip-stop service because the center track does not extend for the whole line.could be written better, perhaps expanded?
However, the agency settled on skip-stop service because the center track existed in two discontinuous segments, which would require complicated track-switching maneuvers to accommodate the express trains. epicgenius ( talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Most passengers would not have to wait longer for a train because, previously, a third of 1 trains had terminated at 137th Streetbe explained - the relationship between not waiting longer and different train routes could be better explained.
The previous headway for stations north of there ...- headway can be wikilinked and 'there' is a little informal - I see it as referring to 137th Street, but 'this station' would be more wikistyle
On July 1988, it was announced that 1/9 skip-stop service would begin...- shouldn't it be In July ... that the 1/9...?
A public hearing on the NYCTA's plan...) is also very bulky and could be broken up; especially with things like the analysis before 1988, this could be put earlier. I also think some of the information in the first half of it is a repeat of things that have been said before, but rephrased and mashed together. This paragraph is probably the weakest writing style-wise, too.
When that was cleared by September 17...is a grammatical anomaly.
New York City Transit was considering eliminating 9 and skip-stop service due to long wait times, and as a result of a decrease in the number of riders benefiting- surely the longer wait time is why fewer people benefited, but it's a run-on with a structure that's hard to follow
It planned on making a decision in the summeris needed, but it can be kept with the sentence written to flow better
Kingsif, epicgenius, Kew Gardens 613, where does this stand? It's been over a month and a half since the most recent posts here; have the citation issues been addressed? (There are still three "citation needed" tags, all of which involve the 1950s (one starts in 1949). Are there any others outstanding? Can we get this wrapped up soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to close (and fail) this for now, since there hasn't been significant work in a few weeks, and none at all in 10 days. However, all that I feel is left to be resolved are a few heavy paragraphs and some missing citations. It's otherwise a nice article. So, this is a fail without prejudice, in part to give the nominator(s) some pressure-free time to work on it, and I'll be happy to revisit when it gets put up for GAN again (hopefully soon!) @ Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: If you want any help, let me know :) Kingsif ( talk) 23:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I would not have promoted this article to GA status as there are still several {{ citation needed}} tags on this page. I may get to these tomorrow. @ Kew Gardens 613: Would you have time to resolve these tags after your finals? epicgenius ( talk) 15:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Epicgenius: and @ Kew Gardens 613:. I have no idea how this passed. I have not been able to tend to the issues as I am currently mourning a sudden death that occurred in my family. Even before that, I had a "busy" tag on my talk page as other off-wiki things were occurring. @ BlueMoonset: What do you think about Happypills review? We have worked with the user in the past and they have some troubling history with GA. AmericanAir88( talk) 16:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
running on 12-minute headways); 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)
@ Epicgenius: 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)