Talk:Central Park/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

There is a reference section. SilkTork (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article is stable, and doesn't suffer much vandalism for such a high profile and well read article. SilkTork (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is workable- it is clear and informative. I will fix any errors as I come upon them rather than bring such minor matters here. My only qualm (so far!) is the location information at the start of the lead. I can see that Britannica does the same thing, but per MOS:INTRO (and this applies to the MOS compliance section 1B), the lead should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and "Editors should avoid ... overly specific descriptions". Such specific detail as " It is located between the Upper West Side and Upper East Side, roughly bounded by Fifth Avenue on the east, Central Park West (Eighth Avenue) on the west, Central Park South (59th Street) on the south, and Central Park North (110th Street) on the north." is a little weighty for a second sentence and also, ironically, provides little helpful information for the millions of people (such as myself) who don't know where those streets are. And oddly, when we get into the main body the location description is actually less detailed: "Central Park is bordered on the north by Central Park North (110th Street), on the south by Central Park South (59th Street), on the west by Central Park West (Eighth Avenue), and on the east by Fifth Avenue." How about using the information from the lead in the main body, and briefly adjusting the lead - perhaps "Central Park is an urban park in New York City, located in the heart of Manhattan. Central Park is the most visited... "? SilkTork (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- True, the lead may have too much information. Some of my other park-related GA's like Prospect Park (Brooklyn) or Van Cortlandt Park don't include the boundaries, but that's because they are too complex. I suppose the neighborhood name may suffice.
Article is richly cited, and sources checked are reliable and confirm what is said in the article. If anything, the article is over-cited (Wikipedia:Citation overkill), but that isn't part of GA criteria, and I'm generally OK with having a secondary citation, as not all sources are accessible to everyone. however in some cases, such as "The fish are scattered more widely, but they include several freshwater species,[310][311]" - cite 310 is reliable: [1], but cite 311 is dubious, taking us to a commercial site: [2]. It would be useful as part of ongoing development to check if all the sources are appropriate and needed where there are multiple cites. The centralpark.com cite appears to be there more to promote the site itself, than to reliably support what is in our article. SilkTork (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed that site as it is dubious. epicgenius (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article is written neutrally, with a good balance of information, including, without undue focus, criticisms and concerns such as the carriage horses. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of original research. Information where checked comes from reliable sources. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attention given to the various aspects of the park appears to be well judged so no aspect appears to be either overly long or short. SilkTork (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Major aspects are covered. I'm not seeing anything significant elsewhere that is not already mentioned in the article. SilkTork (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Images tidied, and appropriate licensing applied to all images. SilkTork (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query

There is an error with CITEREFNRHI. SilkTork (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SilkTork: Is that the reference in the infobox? epicgenius (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, it's in the Further reading section - "National Register of Historic Inventory". There are eleven Further reading items. It's a matter of editorial judgement as to how many and which items to put in Further reading, though it is advised to keep the list "limited", and to link to "notable" works. While you're looking at the problem with the "National Register of Historic Inventory", could you just check that you really need all of the works listed, per Wikipedia:Further reading. "Parks in Urban America", for example, seems a general work, not one specifically on Central Park and the link for the Wiseman film appears to just go to an advert. I confess, I forgot to check the further reading list when doing the main review! SilkTork (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will review the further reading section when I have time. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rich use of images. The amount and type of images to use in an article does come down to editorial judgement, but the impression given here is that use is at times excessive considering the repetition - such as "Sheep Meadow, a common place for gatherings" in the Cultural significance section closely followed by "Skyscrapers abut the southern border of Central Park" in the Real estate and economy section. See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. There is also some image clutter with images pushing into following sections, sometimes squeezing text between two images, and images sometimes alternating and sometimes running just down the right hand side. This impacts on the layout part of Well written 1B: MOS:LAYIM. Captions are OK, though the Cleopatra's Needle caption contains detailed info perhaps best suited for the main body, and which is indeed already in the main body. Perhaps "Cleopatra's Needle: the oldest manmade structure in the park"? I note also that the info on the image is in the following section - guidance is that images should be in the appropriate section. I see that the reason for the Needle not being in the appropriate section is that the section is already occupied by an image which relates to the Strawberry Fields memorial. If selecting between the two I would choose the Needle as the Strawberry Fields image is not clear - it is the sort of image that could almost be selected as an example in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE of what NOT to use to represent something. :-) There are many other Strawberry Fields images available that are clearer: [3] - I personally like the image chosen in Commons as the lead image: File:StrawberryFieldsJuly2007.JPG. Though there are other beautiful ones such as File:CentralPark 04.JPG. SilkTork (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comprehensive image analysis. I try to place the images in as relevant a section as possible. As for some images such as the Needle image, these may seem to intrude on the following sections because they are long and narrow, or the other section has comparatively little text. However, I don't think this would be a major problem for the article, seeing as how the top of the image is within the relevant section, and it would be easy for readers to navigate to the caption at the bottom without possibly being confused. In particular, on my 15-inch laptop, only the Tavern on the Green image's caption goes into the following section, because the "restaurants" section is pretty short. Worse comes to worst, I'll add some {{clear}} templates. epicgenius (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Images should be free to use and appropriately tagged, but there are issues with File:Seneca Village-Central Park-Nyc.gif, File:1868 Vaux ^ Olmstead Map of Central Park, New York City - Geographicus - CentralPark-CentralPark-1869.jpg, File:Central Park 1862.jpg, File:Brooklyn Museum - Early Spring Afternoon--Central Park - Willard Leroy Metcalf - overall.jpg, File:NY Central Park.jpg, and File:Skating in Central Park Frank-S.-Armitage-American-Mutoscope-And-Biograph-1900.ogv. Those are the images I checked down to 1930s to 1950s: Moses rehabilitation - the other images should be checked and fixed before the article can be listed as a GA. SilkTork (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on what is wrong with these images? Most of these are in the public domain given that they were published before 1924, since in the US most works are copyrighted for 95 years. For instance, File:1868 Vaux ^ Olmstead Map of Central Park, New York City - Geographicus - CentralPark-CentralPark-1869.jpg was originally created in 1868. COM:Licensing gives more detailed information. epicgenius (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the images I listed have a specific problem noted on the image page itself - there will be a red alert triangle, and some text explaining what the issue is. For the first image (and probably most of the others as well), it was that " You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." It's simply finding which US tag is most appropriate and putting that on. SilkTork (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CopyVio checker is not working at the moment, so copyvio not yet checked. SilkTork (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check done. No concerns raised. SilkTork (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short sections and single sentence paragraphs inhibit flow, and create a cluttered appearance. WP:OVERSECTION SilkTork (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, I only really found one single-sentence paragraph: the first paragraph of "Transportation". This serves as the "lead" for the subsections. epicgenius (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible MOS issue 1B lists: Plazas and entrances and Sculptures contain embedded lists. While it is possible to argue that the lists are children of the leading paragraphs, they appear to me to be pieces of information that would flow naturally as part of running prose. SilkTork (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I split up these sections into four bullet points. epicgenius (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a closer look at the lead when the tidying up has been done. SilkTork (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

A quick look over and this appears to be a decent article. Immediate concerns are the amount of images and some of the short sections and paragraphs, which are MOS issues pertinent to GA criteria, and also give the article an untidy, cluttered look. Also the weight of detail in some sections, which might impact on focus. But the prose seems solid, and the article looks richly sourced. SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be listed as Sports and recreation or Geography? Public parks are included in Sports and recreation: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Sports_and_recreation#Recreation, but National and state parks are included in Geography: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Geography. I note that Hyde Park, London is listed under Geography. Superficially they are similar, but I note that Hyde Park is a Royal Park, and so belongs to the state. SilkTork (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think Sports and recreation is the best fit as other public parks are in that category. Odd that we split up parks in this way. But, so be it. SilkTork (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganised and renamed the first section Description. I split it into two sections, Geography, which deals with geographic aspects, and Governance, which deals with governance issues, merging the smaller subsections into one or other of these two sections. My original intention was simply to remove the subsection headings per WP:OVERSECTION, but as I worked on it (looking at other GA park articles, such as Hyde Park, London), I saw that the information fell into the two aspects of geography (where it is, how big it is, etc) and governance (who manages it and how), and it was easier just to do the organisation myself than to raise it here and explain it. Any issues with it, please let me know. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with combining all the paragraphs in "Description"/"Geography". The design and size of the park should be one subsection, while the tourists should be another. I originally arranged it so that all three were separate, but after further consideration, the size of the park is related to the geography. Two subsections should be enough, though. epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The older New York Times cites have long titles. Do we need the entire subtitle- for example, instead of "PARK BODIES MERGE IN NEW ASSOCIATION TO SPEED CITY PLANS; Nathan Straus Jr. Heads Union of 3 Societies for Concerted Program of Urban Beauty. URGES PLAYGROUND NEEDS Promises Campaign to Widen and Protect Reservations as Major Civic Need. WOULD ASSIST OFFICIALS But Will Fight Encroachments-- George Gordon Battle to Lead Advisory Committee. Seek to Correlate Efforts. $1,000,000 Won for Central Park. PARK BODIES MERGE IN NEW ASSOCIATION Guard Against Encroachments. Leaders in the Association". Could we just have "PARK BODIES MERGE IN NEW ASSOCIATION TO SPEED CITY PLANS". Or rather, as there is a preference for Title case in titles, rather than using all capitals (Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters), it should be "Park Bodies Merge in New Association to Speed City Plans". This wouldn't come under GA criteria, so this is just something to raise, and wouldn't impact on the review. SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this would fall under "the titles need to be lowercased and condensed". I will address these soon. epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make this sentence a little clearer: "As the city expanded northward up Manhattan Island, people were drawn to the few existing open spaces, mainly cemeteries, to get away from the noise and chaotic life in the city". I couldn't access the source to discover what the intention is. I suspect that it is saying that people wanted open spaces for recreation, but as the statement is foregrounded with the expansion of the city, it could also imply that people wanted open spaces to build residential homes in a quiet area. SilkTork (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first guess was correct. Most people wanted rural escapes to relax, hence why places like Green-Wood Cemetery were so popular. And funnily enough, Central Park was a practice round for Olmsted and Vaux's later project, Prospect Park. Anyway, this is now fixed. epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is very useful overview of an important park. It is informatively and neutrally written and decently organised. It is a little untidy at the moment, mainly due to the use of images. And a number of those images need attention regarding copyright status. I'm not seeing any significant reasons why this should not become a Good Article once tidied up. Putting on hold for an initial seven days to allow time to tidy up the images and other issues raised. Then I'll take a final look at the lead. SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Thanks for the comments. Would you mind looking over the article again? I put appropriate copyright status tags on these. I also cleaned up the Further Reading section and rearranged the images. epicgenius (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at those images and there are still problems with them. I'll look into that for you. SilkTork (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Map of the former Seneca Village (File:Seneca Village-Central Park-Nyc.gif) is cut from a larger image, which doesn't appear to be on Commons, but is downloadable and free to use from New York Public Library: [4]. As that is the original survey done by Veile, do you think it might be useful in the article - especially when compared with the Olmstead Map created twelve years later? Or is that perhaps too geeky for the average reader? Perhaps more suitable for a sub-article: History of Central Park? SilkTork (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the larger image may be useful. However, we should still keep the detail for the Seneca Village image, since it's one of the few images that we have to describe the village in the first place. I don't think that this is really a big deal, though. epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]