Talk:Morningside Heights/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 02:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reviewed up to "1890s through 1930s" and am breaking now to play Bannerlord for the first time. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

History

• Initially, Manhattan was settled Link "Manhatten" here.
  •  Done
• At the end of the war, Vandewater Heights was sold by 1785 to James W. De Peyster. Two conflicting figures of time here. First vague, second specific but made redundant.
  •  Done
• (now part of Cathedral of St. John the Divine) Needs a "the".
  •  Done
• There need not be more than one paragraph, in "Start of development" to explain that Morningside had a late start in the 19th century. Combine and reduce.
  • I feel that this would gloss over the infrastructure improvements made during this time. Nevertheless, I have trimmed it, and refocused the section to focus on early-19th century improvements. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• present site of Rockefeller Center the Rockefeller center
  • This would sound weird, because Rockefeller Center is not usually preceded by "the", unlike the World Trade Center. See, for instance, Construction of Rockefeller Center. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The construction of the Rockefeller Center complex in New York City [...] Though, this is the only time "the Rockefeller Center" appears in that article. I'll bow to precedent in this regard. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• The Society for New York Hospital Is "Hospital" supposed to be singular here?
  • Apparently, yes. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• [...] which later became Riverside Park and Riverside Drive.[32][33][34][35] Does this really need four citations?
  •  Fixed
• including St. Luke's Hospital First mention of St. Luke's, but not wikilinked until "Academic Acropolis development".
  •  Fixed
• wealthy donor Elizabeth Milbank Anderson donated funds Replace the first two words with "philanthropist".
  •  Fixed
• that Charles A. Rich was hired. To do what?
  •  Added
• and Juilliard School the Juilliard School
  •  Done
• Morningside Heights Inc., headed by David Rockefeller, was the first major joint venture between the neighborhood's institution. Between MHInc and who?
  • MHInc itself was the joint venture. It was between the neighborhood's institutions. I forgot to add the "s". epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Footnote C should be at the end of which were constructing structures with more distinctive designs.
  •  Done
• Many residential buildings were converted to residential use Confusing.
  • Oops.  Fixed
• Twice it is heavily implied, and once explicitly stated, that Columbia University was the biggest landowner in Morningside Heights. I advise combining the references Columbia's expanding ownership to the first paragraph, as a frame of reference, and then rolling down the timeline from there.
  • Much of this effort was undertaken by Columbia, the largest landlord in Morningside Heights The latter can be inferred from By the late 1970s, one in five apartment buildings in Morningside Heights were owned by Columbia.
    •  Done

Demographics to Education

• 54,208 counted in 2000. Expand the link to the 2000 census; at first glance, I thought it was to 2000 in the United States.
  •  Done
• Morningside Heights is served by two New York City Fire Department (FDNY) fire stations Axe the "fire" in "fire stations"; it's redundant.
  •  Done
• In Community District 9, there were 82 preterm births per 1,000 live births (compared to 87 per 1,000 citywide), and 10.9 teenage births per 1,000 live births (compared to 19.3 per 1,000 citywide). Condense.
  • Do you propose another wording? This is already pretty condensed. I did what I could. epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I forgot, for some reason, to include the sentence Preterm and teenage births in Community District 9 are lower than the city average. in the highlight. Here's my wording with that in mind: Preterm and teenage births in Community District 9 are lower than the city average at 82 preterm births per 1,000 live births (compared to 87 per 1,000 citywide), and 10.9 teenage births per 1,000 live births (compared to 19.3 per 1,000 citywide). "Combine" probably would have been the better (if more confusing because of the accidental omission) instruction. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that makes a lot more sense now.  Done. epicgenius (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Community District 9 has a low population of residents who are uninsured. In 2018, this population of uninsured residents was estimated to be 11%, slightly less than the citywide rate of 12%. Ditto.
  •  Done
• Seventeen percent [...] Eighty-eight percent Inconsistent with other given percentages.
  • This is done because grammatically, it is incorrect for the sentence to start with a numeral value. epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• The primary hospital in Morningside Heights is Mount Sinai Morningside, located on Amsterdam Avenue between 113th and 115th Streets. Everything in this paragraph past this sentence is entirely irrelevant to the health of the denizens of Morningside Heights.

• Removed all except the last sentence, which is relevant.

• Note: I ignored the same thing happening in "Fire safety" because Engine Company 47 doesn't have an article; the architectural details there should ideally not be present, either. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• If and when all of this is removed, I recommend reducing the section-headers for "Police and crime", "Fire safety", and "Health" to sub-headers for a "Health and safety" section. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• This would be inconsistent with other neighborhood articles. Even with consistency, I don't think police, fire, and health services can necessarily be related under a single safety section. Maybe I will consider splitting these pages later. epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• one charter school: Change the colon to a comma.
  •  Done

Religion

• There is more superfluous architectural detail in "Religion"; Almost every one of the mentioned churches has an article. This section is for religious statistics, not landmarks.
  • I have tried doing so. Several of the churches are architecturally noted (one is a pretty huge incomplete cathedral, and the other is a national landmark). I removed the architectural styles and the years of construction as well. epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Do you have religious statistics for Morningside Heights? At present, the section just discusses (religious) landmarks. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't, unfortunately. Religion surveys are conducted by borough, rather than by neighborhood or even by community district. epicgenius (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Referencing

• Every book citation using [#]:page# already has the page number inside the citation.
  •  Fixed
• [...] such as Columbia University's East Campus.[144]:736–737 Citation [144] not only already has a page number, but an incorrect one.
  •  Fixed

Land use and terrain

• Eglise de Notre Dame Why is this name in French now?
  •  Fixed
• Move the image of Grant's Tomb to the right and the Croton Gatehouse to the left.
  •  Done

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.