Talk:Jacob Riis Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 19:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer Feedback

Lead

• Not an issue but curious about what's with the comment in the text.
  • I believe Tdorante10 included these when he was expanding the article, then commented some of the unnecessary/awkward wording out. He wrote most of the text on this page. epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Later on it says the park was transferred in 1974 but here 1972 (when the Gateway Recreation area was founded). Which is right (also made small tweak to that sentence)
  • Fixed. Tdorante10 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Name

• Recommend striking "as documented by European settler Abraham Hewlett."
  • Done, though the phrase "European settler Abraham Hewlett" clarifies who had documented such a thing. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

History

• Not sure that the last paragraph of Acquisition of park is necessary in such depth.
  • Could you clarify this? It looks appropriate, given the fact that this paragraph talks about a precursor to Jacob Riis Park. It is important because it is later contrasted to the final design of the park. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• The opening paragraph of decline and creation seems to just be a list of events in a way the rest of the article isn't. Not really a problem for GA but thought the observation merited noting.
  • I rephrased in a way that it would flow better. These all seem to be crimes or other events relating to decline. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Would encourage a read through of the 1990s to Present section. At points the seams of this having been put together during Wikipedia's time show. The most noticeable place for me was in regards to the tenses around the pipeline and whether as much detail as is present is needed for the Hurricane Sandy notes.
  • I split into two sections. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Description

• Much of the intro section is just collating material found elsewhere in the article.
  • That's the purpose of this intro section. It serves as a "lead" for all of the other features described in the subsections. The details are just mentioned again in a singular place. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Without delving into the sources the various parking lot numbers don't make a lot of sense. Some added context would be useful.
  • I removed the part that stated that the combined area of three parking lots is 1 mile. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's helpful.

• I'm surprised that the only depiction in pop culture is the cracker jack commercial. That said does it need three sources to prove it?
  • Removed 1 duplicate source. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• I do not understand how RP is being used here. For instance for <ref name="NPS-Riis-Tilden-Jun1989" />{{rp|5 (PDF p.11)}} why isn't it just <ref name="NPS-Riis-Tilden-Jun1989" />{{rp|11)}}? This is not a requirement for GA but I am curious (in case there's a reason I can understand better) and because it seems like this could get to FAC someday where such things do matter.
  • @Barkeep49: Although {{RP}} is used to provide page numbers, the reader will probably be confused at first whether it is the PDF page 11, or if it's the document page 11. The extra notation removes the uncertainty. epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• I have checked sources at the depth required for GA and found no issues. I have not paid any attention to FAC level sourcing requirements but what work I've seen would suggest promising results there.

Other GA Criterion

• No issues with images
• No copyright issues

Discussion

Can @Epicgenius: or other interested editor confirm they still wish to go through the GA process before I begin my review? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I am still interested in a review. Thank you for taking this up. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Beginning read through below. Processwise I tend to do a rather detailed read through (which can take a couple of days) addressing issues like sourcing and such and making suggestions (I tend to be the opposite of Bold to make sure that someone who really knows something is making content changes). I then circle back around to some of the "easier" criterion like picture checking at the end. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This article had the fewest issues of any GA review I've done so far. Happy to be passing it. Congrats to the the editors who worked on this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)