Talk:Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle. 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/20120705235200/http://www.preservenys.org/seven-2002/seven-04.html to http://www.preservenys.org/seven-2002/seven-04.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811001300/http://www.historic-albany.org/whatwedo.html to http://www.historic-albany.org/whatwedo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091118145425/http://www.albanyny.org/Government/Departments/DevelopmentPlanning/NeighborhoodPlanning/ArborHill.aspx to http://www.albanyny.org/Government/Departments/DevelopmentPlanning/NeighborhoodPlanning/ArborHill.aspx

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) 11:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 13:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Beginning review. First impressions are good. CMD (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for getting to this later than I would have liked to. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Four years later, it was". Can "it" be clarified. I assume it was the "historic district" that was changed, but did this affect affect the definition of the actual neighborhoods?

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "reflect its expansion to include some of Arbor Hill." This implies that the triangle is not part of Arbor Hill, which is not the impression I get from the rest of the article.

 Done Reworded. This sort of reflects the perception in Albany of "Arbor Hill" as referring to the poor, predominantly Black neighborhood alone, whereas the triangle is increasingly gentrified, White and rich. But historically they are the same neighborhood; no one really wants to separate them. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "It was one of the first neighborhoods to develop north of the city's downtown..." Was Albany's "downtown" a downtown at that point? The Downtown Albany Historic District puts its development in a similar timeframe.

Downtown Albany is the historic core of the city ... the district boundaries are roughly what was enclosed by the city's walls in the 17th century. So it was "downtown" when the current historic district was woods and fields. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The largest and oldest, the Ten Broeck Mansion". This is slightly redundant to the second paragraph.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The district also includes two churches, including St. Joseph's Church, reflecting a later popularity with immigrants." This is a surprising sentence, did teh original settlers not have churches?

All the original settlers' churches (none of which have survived) were in what's now downtown. The later residents who began developing the area had few houses and they were reasonably wealthy; I suppose it's possible they could have built a church out there but, as there were so few of them and they certainly had horses and carriages for the trip, I would not be surprised if they went back downtown on Sunday mornings. The fact that the two churches which are among the contributing properties are Catholic and Baptist (neither of which would have been likely to be the faith of rich Albanyites of Dutch descent in the early 19th century) accords with later im/migrant populations settling in the neighborhood. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Slightly beyond GA, but a map of New York doesn't seem that helpful for such a small-scale area (let alone a map of the United States!). Is a more focused locator map possible?

I read youI.e., I hear you, in print. Yeah, the map of the state sort of makes sense for NRHP listings in small towns that no one outside the state (or often even in it) has ever heard of, but with so many listings in Albany it would now make sense to use either a geolocated version of this or the OSM version of Central Albany. But, as you said, this is not something we can do right now.

• In Geography, I'm struggling from the map to see how the Mansion fits into a triangle taking up an eastern third. Could the map also show the pre-expansion borders? (Also slightly beyond GA if not possible.)

I suspect that "Triangle" is like so many local geographic terms using geometric figures sort of used in a rough, approximate way, here more because of the angle that Ten Broeck Street cuts through the grid pattern that otherwise characterizes most of this part of Albany, making a nice hypotenuse (frankly, although the mansion probably was there first, it makes more sense to assume that the triangle takes its name from the street). It makes a little more sense assuming the incomplete North Hawk Street as the western bound.

In fact, reviewing the street, the name "triangle" wasn't used originally, although it is described on page 2 as "roughly triangular" in shape ... that is, IMO, being generous as the boundary, taking in only the park around St. Joseph's and the mansion, is more an irregular sawtooth pattern.

It probably would be a good idea to update the map to show the original boundary as well (we have done this with other historic district expansions in urban cores (see Central Troy Historic District and Downtown Ossining Historic District, both GAs that I've done the bulk of the work on, and where the districts were expanded after I had written the articles and made the district maps.

CTTOI, I will take that part about the district being named for the mansion out, as the cited source doesn't really support that. In fact, I wonder if the "Triangle" part (which the city fully embraces now; see the banners on the streetlights on Street View here) is really just a creation of the district expansion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: The application for the boundary increase says, on p. 14, that the district is "popularly known as" the Ten Broeck Triangle. So it's independent of the historic district, although why it goes from not being mentioned at all to being part of the name of the district in six years, the application does not say. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Really  Fixed I just stumbled across what this should have said, and properly sourced it. The Ten Broeck Mansion was originally known as Arbor Hill, hence the name for the district as a whole. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The district boundary, also the western boundary..." Would it work to specific "The eastern district boundary" or "The eastern boundary" here?

 Fixed I clarified somewhat. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• "some commercial properties along the adjacent blocks next to them". Are these "adjacent blocks" the "the next three blocks"? If so it seems redundant, otherwise I'm not sure what it's trying to say.

 Fixed "The adjacent blocks next to them" ... aaaaaaarrrrrgggh! Funny how well you can pretty attuned to others' overused redunant phrasing, à la "sufficient enough", and miss your own! I'll have to remember that one! Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "small commercial buildings, institutional structures" appears to be missing an "or".

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• The open space sentences are sourced to page 2, but page 2 seems almost blank? If not, can't tell how page numbers are being determined.

 Fixed It was really meant to be the other nom. I also added a Google Maps cite that lets you see this, as well as the many mature trees throughout the district

• "Open space within the district includes a few vacant lots and parking lots. Most are planned, such as Van Rensselaer Park" This needs tweaking, as it sounds like the parks are considered either vacant lots or parking lots.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• How does the topquest source provide information about old ravines?

 Fixed I changed the wording of the sentence. Will find another source for all the filled-in ravines. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I found another source for the ravines. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Can't see the details of the Rensselaerwyck cemetery story in the source either, perhaps another page number issue. Will come back to this source later. I'm facing a similar issue with the other National Archives source.

 Fixed Was citing the wrong nomination form. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Source following "The brick rowhouses at 15–23 and 35–39 Ten Broeck followed" is missing its page number.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Continuing historic surveys and inventories of the area found that the blocks between the Ten Broeck Triangle and North Swan also had many intact rowhouses from the same 19th century period with little modern intrusion, even if some of them were in a state of neglect and disrepair. That area also extended to St. Joseph's School, part of the church's complex." What's the source for this portion?

 Fixed The same source as for the size of the expansion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• "St. Joseph's struggles in the late 20th century were emblematic of the district as a whole" also doesn't seem clearly sourced.

 Fixed Yep, another case of getting too journalistic and less encylopedic. Reworded along with some other portions of the graf. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2000 it made", assuming "it" is the church, but as this is the start of a paragraph I think this should be spelled out.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• 50 North Swan Street is before 43 North Swan Street, presumably because of 53, but it looks out of order as 43 is listed first.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Arbor Hill Neighborhood Plan Progress Report, 2005 source in Preservation seems dead.

 Fixed Added the archived version to the link.

Article seems thorough, focused, neutral, and stable. Images appropriately licenced. Putting on hold. CMD (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: OK, I've gone through your punch list ... are you satisfied? Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I fear I'm missing a cultural reference.

• Regarding "north of the city's downtown", would changing it to "north of the today's downtown" or similar work?

Removes the potential anachronism that gave me pause.

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• The church sentence at the end of the lead still feels like a surprise, but I understand the reasoning so I'm not going to hold the GA over this.
• For some reason I can't load the sources now, but taking word above they're fixed.

Given this, happy to pass. Best, CMD (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)