Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook

Talk:Fort Tryon Park

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Beyond My Ken in topic Copy editing
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:WikiProject iconNew York City Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNational Register of Historic Places Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force

Unsourced Material

edit

Article has been tagged for needing references since 2010. Please feel free to reincorporate this material with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit

As discussed at WP:IPC, and as it is my understanding is the general practice at many articles here that incorporate such sections, when adding "in popular culture" items secondary sourcing should be provided establishing that the references are significant in some manner. We do not need an indiscriminate list of occurrences of Fort Tryon Park in films; rather we should focus on scenarios where the occurrence received notice from independent sources. Additionally the current listings make claims that should be verifiable via references. DonIago (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

YOur understand is incorreect. Popcult entries which are straightforward description are, in fact, sourced by the media item (book, film, etc) which they refer to. Only those which stray into interpretation or analysis need to be sourced. BMK (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Looks like we'll need to hear from other editors so we can get a consensus one way or the other. DonIago (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Tryon Park. 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: 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) 14:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Tryon Park. 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: 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) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Tryon Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit

1. Well-written

Prose clear, concise, and understandable  Y See some of the comments below
Spelling/Grammar  Y I corrected a few minor issues as I went along.
Lead  Y
Layout  Y
Buzzwords/fiction/lists  Y

2. Verifiable

No original research  Y
List of references properly formatted  Y
Inline citations from RS  Y
No COPYVIO  Y None detected.

3. Broad in coverage

Covers main aspects  Y
Stays on topic  Y, but see comment below at the public image section

4. Neutral  Y

5. Stable  Y

6. Illustrated if possible

Media tagged for copyright status  Y Images all appear to be tagged as uploader's own work except for one, which is tagged as a donated image. There is no obvious reason to doubt the own work tags.
Media relevant  Y
I have one concern about the media. One of the images, the image of patrons on the lawn, shows a fairly close, high-enough resolution to be recognizable shot of a patron's face. I'm not super familiar with the nuances of privacy law, but is this a situation in which the subject would have to give permission for the image to be released? The person would not be trackable to get said permission, so somebody probably better look into the applicable privacy law with that.
@Hog Farm: I don't think this should be an issue, as it is not disallowed in Wikimedia Commons, but I'll look into replacing it. I took hundreds of pictures of the park a couple months ago. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Epicgenius: That ought to be good again. Since Commons doesn't disallow it, that'll work. Hog Farm (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notes

edit

"Geography and geology" Is "inter-laid" usually hyphenated? I've always seen it as "interlaid." Also, the redlink to Dyckman Street Fault should be taken care of, either through removal of the wikilinks or article creation.

"Site" "As of 1711, leaders declared" Which leaders?

"Late-20th and early-21st century improvements" WP:SEAOFBLUE at "Bette Midler's nonprofit organization, New York Restoration Project. I'd recommend "nonprofit organization" to be the one to be delinked.

"Plantings" Is "Picnic Grounds" a specifically-named portion of the park? If not, it shouldn't be capitalized.

"Playgrounds" "a triangle-shaped play area that primarily serves Inwood" What is Inwood?

"The Cloisters" Should the first b in "belgian blocks" be capitalized?

"Linden Terrace" The point is the highest spot in the Manhattan landscape, but not the highest spot in Manhattan. You should probably explain what you mean by this in the article.

"Concession building" SEAOFBLUE from the improvements section again.

Caption of the gazebo image I don't believe that gazebo should be capitalized in that usage.

"Public use and perception" I think listing the number of citations for public intercourse in 2018 constitutes excessive detail, although you may disagree with me about this.

I haven't checked the references yet, I'll get along to that soon. I've left some preliminary comments about the other criteria. Good work. Hog Farm (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit

Source 1: This takes me to a search function page. It would be nice to have the link directly to the subsite where Fort Tryon Park is listed, if possible.

Source 146: Is a bare reference name.

edit

Two of the external links, the Friends of the Park link and the Annual Medieval Festival link, are links to Wayback Machine page archives. I'm not sure if that is compatible with the requirement at WP:LINKSTOAVOID that external links be to a functioning website.

Overall, very good. See my notes above, most of the issues should be fairly easy fixes. Hog Farm (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

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 Yoninah (talk22:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 
Linden Terrace in Fort Tryon Park
  • Reviewed: World's Largest Stove
  • Comment: Pictured is Linden Terrace, the highest landscape feature in Manhattan, located in the park.

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 16:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.
Overall:   Wow. This one is a labour of love, clearly - respect. Good to go. Storye book (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Copy editing

edit

I reverted the "copy edits" made by Baffle gab 1978 since, in general, they did not improve the article. Not only did they reduce the quality of the prose to a level I would expect to find on Simple English Wikipedia, but some of the changes were actually incorrect grammatically. These edits should not be restored unless there is a consensus here that they improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do agree with the reversion. A few of the changes were harmless, but many were indeed incorrect. More importantly, subtle changes in meaning were introduced, or outright errors such as changing the location of Ft. George, or substituting "United Kingdom" for "Great Britain". Station1 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Beyond My Ken and Station1: Thanks for the replies. I've asked to cancel the copyedit request. I should've discussed with you first, but as it happens, I forgot about that. I wanted to potentially bring this up to a higher quality later, maybe even match the featured article quality of the Cloisters. So that's why I wanted a second opinion.
Baffle gab1978, sorry for wasting your time. I generally think your edits are good, but it does seem that some of the edits are incorrect, which I had intended to fix afterward. epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
If copy edits are improvements, there should be no need to correct them. Simply put, copy edits which need to be corrected are bad copy edits. I would suggest to Baffle gab that they find another line of work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Beyond My Ken, I was trying to fix the references, but I see you've reverted these edits. I have fixed these refs again, but kept the previous wording. epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
All good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply