Talk:PATH (rail system)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 21:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will be the glutton for punishment who takes this monster on after it's languished here for over a year (is this a record?). Fortunately, I'm not unfamiliar with the subject, having grown up in the tristate area and ridden the PATH quite a few times; once it was even part of my daily commute.

I will, as I always do with GA reviews, first be printing it out for the light copyedit I usually do as part of the review process (I don't think copy issues should really be allowed to kill a nomination). This may well take until next week or so. Afterwards I'll be back with whatever I've got. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... following a copy edit that shaved almost 10K from the article (a sure sign there was fat, as it's the most an article I've worked on has ever shrunk from that process), I can start making comments.

Before anything else, and speaking of fat, we need to have a shorter intro. At six grafs it is two longer than MOS:LEAD recommends. I think that a lot of the stuff about the method of payment really isn't necessary in the article lead, for starters. The second graf is also way long.

I have decided to write and propose here a shorter intro (w/o links for now):

Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) , formerly the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad (H&M), is a a wholly owned subsidiary of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA) that operates a 13.8-mile (22.2 km) rapid transit system connecting 13 stations in the northern New Jersey cities of Newark, Harrison, Hoboken, and Jersey City with lower and midtown Manhattan. PATH trains run around the clock year round; four lines operate during the daytime on weekdays, while two operate during weekends, late nights, and holidays. Its tracks cross the Hudson River through century-old cast iron tubes that rest on the river bottom under a thin layer of silt. In Manhattan and near the New Jersey riverfront the trains remain underground; to the west they run in open cuts, at grade level, and on elevated track.
The routes of the PATH system were originally operated by the H&M, a commuter railroad built to link New Jersey's Hudson Waterfront with New York City. Between 1908 and 1911, it built the current system, with three additional stations that have since closed. The rise of automobile travel and the concurrent construction of bridges and tunnels across the river sent the H&M into an financial decline it never recovered from, leaving the PA to take over operations in 1960, six years after the railroad went bankrupt. Both private and public owners have proposed expanding PATH service in New Jersey; an extension to Newark Liberty International Airport is projected to start construction in 2020.
In recent years the system has suffered considerably from some of the disasters that have affected New York, most notably the September 11 attacks and Hurricane Sandy. PATH service is expensive for the PA to run since unlike other urban mass transit systems it is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration, due to the H&M having at one point shared some track, and an interlocking, with the Pennsylvania Railroad; train operators must be licensed as railroad engineers. PATH currently uses one class of rolling stock, the PA5, which was delivered in 2009–2011.

See? Much shorter and gets at the important points. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll put this in tonight. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is done. Fuller review with issues I want addressed later today, hopefully. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

OK. It has taken us long enough to get here.

The short answer is that I believe this article can pass. But there are some issues we need to address first. So it will be on hold.

I do not think it will be difficult. This reminds me of Lewis Hamilton, the only longer GA-nominated article I've taken on, in that has some similar issues: different writing voices, with similar tendencies to redundant wording and overly precise recording of dates. And I think that maybe that length could be addressed down the line by inducing labor and giving birth to a separate History of PATH article. But it's not essential yet.

Its length means it is comprehensive and tells me everything I would expect to find in a thoroughly researched article on PATH. The regulatory quirk whereby the railroad is under FRA jurisidiction? Check; it was explained. The video for "The Hardest Button to Button" being shot in a PATH station? Yup, it's there.

Now some specific issues, things I didn't feel were within my ambit as GA reviewer to change in a copy edit:

  • In the history section, could we find a shorter way to refer to the New York City Board of Transit Commissioners on second reference?
    • @Daniel Case: I replaced this with "rapid transit commissioners". I don't think it can be shortened further without becoming confusing. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "1980s and 1990s", do we really need that level of detail about how the new car wash in Jersey City works? If we had a separate stand-alone article on that yard, I'd say it belongs there. But not in the top-level article about PATH.
  • Likewise, do we need a full graf describing the new entrance to Exchange Place (and speaking of that station, I always wonder if there might be a reliable source describing something my dad told me commuters would do at that station in the '70s and they were in the mood for a little fun: when the train pulled into the station and the PA would announce it, a lot of people would get up and sit in someone else's recently vacated seat across the aisle (Get it? "Exchange Place. Exchange Place." ) I don't the article describes any other station's improvements in such detail, and since that station has its own article, which I think has that detail, I don't see why this article needs it as well.
    • I could remove these details. In regards to the PA system (speaking of ... I'll address the use of "PA" further down), that sounds fun, but maybe not a big enough detail to be included . Maybe Kew Gardens 613 knows something. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the failed 2006 terror plot really relevant here? It doesn't seem to have resulted in any disruption to service or major changes in PATH operations.
    • Moved down to "incidents" section. I'm not sure, but I think at the time it may have been a big deal. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last graf of "2010s improvements", the original article suddenly switched to using the station abbreviations to describe the routes, rather than the full words as the rest of the article does. I switched them to the latter for consistency's sake, but I think this raises a valid question: should the whole article use abbreviations like "NWK-WTC" or "HOB-33D" for brevity's sake? Does the Port Authority show a preference in its internal usage.
    • I switched the abbreviations. I personally think we should use abbreviations. However, in its schedule PANYNJ uses the full names. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scale map of the PATH system shows a bit of red line continuing past Newark. Is this meant to represent the yard, of sorts, along the tracks south of the station that you can see from Route 21 as you're driving up to it from 22/78? If so, is it really necessary since passenger service does not go there? The other two maps don't show it, and neither does the Port Authority's own map, for that matter.
    • There are storage tracks south of Newark, so yes, that could be a reason. Also, this will be part of the future Newark Airport extension. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That picture of the old 19th Street station does not fit well in the section with the table listing all present and former stations. I think it could easily be moved up to the "Decline and bankruptcy" section's last graf, where it would be relevant, and where there is currently no image.
    • Done.
  • I'm wondering if some sort of color coding (for the services?) might help make the station table more usable?
  • Do we usually include such detailed fare information in our articles about other rapid transit rail systems that don't have flat fares? Washington Metro doesn't, but then that's a much more complicated fare system. But neither does the article on Hong Kong's MTR.

    Per WP:NOTTRAVEL: "An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées." I think this applies to a detailed description of PATH fares. If someone has done a lot of work putting this together and would resist very much having to take it out, I think Wikivoyage (where we do not yet have a page on PATH, and I don't see why not) would be an ideal place for it.

  • While the section on the history of PATH's fare structure and collection actually works, I'd love to see some pictures of these older machines.

Alright; I've got more but it's getting late. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK again ...

  • The third graf of "Current roster" largely repeats the information about the 2010-era purchase of new cars from Siemens. It belongs in only one section—frankly I think this one is better for it as it is where rolling stock is more specifically discussed. Yes, we can leave a mention of it in a sentence or two in the other section.
    • I trimmed the mention of PA5 in other sections. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice, maybe, if we could put a picture of the Harrison yard in. Do we have one? If not, it should be easy to get IME.
    • Not really. And I doubt anyone will do that soon. Even if not outright illegal, it's suspicious to take any pictures on PATH property. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: What I was thinking was that you can get pictures from the NJT lines nearby while you're riding those trains. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: That would be pretty hard since I don't ride NJT or even take PATH regularly. Maybe we can ask someone in WP:NJ or WP:NYC. epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I should have been clearer that I didn't mean you have to get it. And that it's not essential for GA. I just think it's a good idea going forward.

I also was looking at it on Google Maps after writing that last night. It seems like a good picture could be taken from one of those factory lots across the river. And of course a drone is always a possibility (I can also see if anyone on Flickr might have taken a free image). Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a drone, but I'm not taking it all the way to Jersey, since it would look suspicious on a PATH train in the first place . Anyway, I agree that Flickr may be the best way to go. epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, what about the car storage you see along the tracks south of Newark Penn Station? I know it's not a yard, but it's pretty prominent, especially when you pass them going towards or from that station in that direction, and perhaps we should mention it.
    • These are just reversing tracks for the NWK-WTC line. It is about as notable as the center tracks in some NYC Subway tunnels, that is, they get one-sentence mentions. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detail about how the A and C PA4 cars could be hooked together, particularly the last sentence of the fourth graf of "Former roster", really seems to be belaboring the point. Especially since those cars are no longer in use.
  • Likewise, do we really need all the car numbers for the train that was underneath the WTC on 9/11, much less the detail about how differently they were affected? Please. We're getting into foamer territory with this.
    • Cars 745 and 143 are notable as being preserved, so I've left these cars' numbers. I removed the other cars' numbers. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think both subsections of the "major incidents" section would be better off as bulleted lists.
    • I see what you mean. It's awkward, especially for the first subsection. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, are the escalators depicted in the image the escalators that stopped suddenly? Do we have some sort of source verifying this? If not, I'd just as much we removed the image, since it isn't doing anything there other than creating formatting headaches for the sections below.
  • I noticed that some of the footnotes that cite The New York Times include the paper's ISSN number. This is something I've not done myself, nor seen anyone else doing. I would have removed them, but WP:ISSN says this is not to be done (with emphasis). Are we OK with this inconsistency? If not, we need to put the ISSN in every cite to the Times.
@Epicgenius: I see notes 8, 9, 27, 42, 43, 45, 48, 54, 60, 78–80, 89, 90, 92–94, 96, 97, 102–104, 111, 115, 116, 118, 128, 196, 204–206 and 265 still needing ISSNs. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case, I did that now. That was 50 refs where the code was =[[The New York Times]] instead of =The New York Times. Not sure why there were some instances of NY Times that were linked, and others weren't. epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: They may have been cites that I added or cleaned up. I always link the source name if we have an article on it no matter how many times we use it in citations; that's explicitly exempt from WP:OVER. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of style[edit]

  • First, we need to decide whether we should say "PATH" or "the PATH". From perusing the PA's website, I get the feeling the agency prefers the former, but newspaper articles and, in my experience, colloquial everyday usage in Manhattan and northeastern New Jersey use the article (I recall it being used the first time I was ever taken on it as a child in the mid-'70s).

    If we decide that both are merited in different contexts, we also need to decide what those contexts are.

    Right now the article is all over the place on this. I did not feel comfortable picking a winner all by myself without consensus.

    • Not sure about this either, since sometimes I tend to accidentally omit "the" before proper names. The usage of the definite article is inconsistent in general, though, especially since I also speak Chinese, a language with no definite article. But in this case if "PATH" is an adjective, it has no definite article, and if "PATH" is a noun, it does. Anyway, that may be a topic for another discussion. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that's not correct. If "PATH" was used in the nominative or dative case, it had no article, but if "PATH" was in the accusative, it did. Anyhow, it's standardized now so that all noun uses don't have "the" before "PATH". epicgenius (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still not comfortable with always using "PANYNJ" as the abbreviation for the Port Authority. Yes, the agency always calls itself that, but I can't help but notice that the article, when it uses a spelled-out term, overwhelmingly prefers just the two words without the states' names.

    And for good reason—doing that is, to me, tantamount to always insisting that Emilia Clarke's character in Game of Thrones be referred to as "[{Danaerys Targaryen]] the Stormborn, the Unburnt, First of that Name, Breaker of Chains and Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea" or whatever, in our articles. The acronym is "PATH", not "PANYNJTH", after all.

    I note that Port Authority Bus Terminal doesn't seem to have this problem. I also don't see much evidence that "PA" isn't used much outside of Wikipedia. One of this article's own sources doesn't have a problem putting "PA" in the hed (although it does seem to me as if copy editors try to avoid having to take a side on this one.

    Really, I don't see how we would be confusing the reader by just using "PA". What else in this article could it possibly be referring to?

    • As for "PA", it could mean "Port Authority", or it could be "public announcements", "Pennsylvania", or any number of other things. The reason why "PANYNJ" is used because it's the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The short name, "Port Authority", tends not to be abbreviated to PA.
      On the other hand, "Port Authority Bus Terminal" is abbreviated to "PABT" because it's not called the "Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Bus Terminal". It can be abbreviated to "PA Bus Terminal" because now it has the context that it's not called "Pennsylvania Bus Terminal" or something.
      This actually reminds me of why, in this article, I didn't refer to the agency as "Port Authority", either. The bus terminal is also called "Port Authority". Even though the bus terminal is not explicitly mentioned in the PATH article, it can still be confusing. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, in the context of this article, anybody is going to think it means Pennsylvania (outside of its use in the name of the railroad during the history section, and the reference to PATCO Connection in See Also, it's not mentioned). We strongly discourage in article text that otherwise common practice of using the two-letter postal abbreviations for the states, to begin with.

Public address? Where in the article would that create confusion.

Again, it doesn't seem to bother the Bergen Record's copy desk (Or here).

Look, I understand that just using it without an antecedent nearby would be a little confusing. But, when you say "The Port Authority did X" in the beginning of a graf, I don't think "PA" used later on would be too problematic. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it may not be directly confused with "Pennsylvania" or "public announcement" within the context of this article. However, the PANYNJ abbreviation is used in other articles, including these pages, so it's more of a matter of consistency especially in regards to potentially ambiguous acronyms. I'd be fine with using "Port Authority" though, because something similar is used in Construction of the World Trade Center and World Trade Center (1973–2001). epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: oknazevad reverted my edit yesterday to change "PANYNJ" to "Port Authority". I don't think the abbreviation (or lack there is a major issue anyway, so how should we go forward?
@Epicgenius: I'm inclined to leave it as is ... I think there isn't any consensus one way or the other and that this requires a discussion independent of this GA nom. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Well, that's what I have. I'm putting the article on hold until we address these things or decide what we want to do, or not to. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Thanks for your thorough review. I've replied to all of the issues you brought up. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. After I fixed a couple of typoes I had left behind, everything checks out. This article will ✓ Pass. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PATH_(rail_system)/GA1&oldid=908132575"