Talk:Verdi Square/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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 toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 19:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, since I know you often take articles to FAC, I'll be a little more critical of the prose than I might otherwise be. I'll try to separate out those comments so you can ignore them if you want to.

Images are appropriately licensed.

  • What makes West Side Rag a reliable source? It says it's a blog site written by locals.
    • I have removed this. It is used twice, but in both cases the statement is backed up by another source. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an NY Times blog, I know it's the NYT, but blogs are unlikely to be fact-checked. Can we avoid the use of this source?
    • Also removed - this was used to cite something quite trivial. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About half of the park is built on the former northbound lanes of Broadway, which was closed in 2003 during a renovation of the New York City Subway's adjacent 72nd Street station." Should be "were", not "was", surely? Unless I'm misreading this. And this phrasing makes it sounds like was only closing during the renovation, whereas I gather those lanes never reopened.
    • I've rephrased it to say that the lanes were permanently closed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no plan view, showing the park shape, layout, and adjacent streets. Can one be added?
  • According to Google Maps, Sherman Square is not adjacent, it's south of 71st, but we have that the square is bounded by Sherman Square to the south. I see from the third lead para that Sherman Square must have extended from 70th to 73rd, but is the bit between 71st and 72nd currently referred to as Sherman Square?
  • "the park was significantly expanded in the early 2000s when the new subway entrance was constructed": this repeats the information given in the first paragraph, doesn't it? Can we restructure to avoid the repetition?
    • I've reworded this sentence so it's not that repetitive. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source only says the Verdi statue "had" a time capsule; not "has". It might be phrased that way because the time capsule has been opened already. If we have no other sources I think we need to be less definite in our phrasing.
  • I'm confused by the alternating use of "station house" and "head house"; do they refer to the same building?
    • Yes. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I see it's now consistently "head house" in the body, and "station house" in the lead. What's the difference? Knowing little about subways I knew neither term before reading this article and would have had to follow links anyway. If we ought to use both terms we can, but maybe add a footnote in that case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually meant to change them all to "head house" but got distracted yesterday. Sorry about that. I've done this now. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Verdi Square planters do not have cobra-shaped handles, unlike the Prospect Park planters, where the handles were vandalized." Why are we mentioning the vandalism to a different park? Is it related to the shape of the handles?
    • I removed that bit. The Verdi Square planters were nearly identical to the Prospect Park planters, except for the handles and a few other details. Whereas the Prospect Park planters used to have handles (but not anymore, because they were vandalized), the Verdi Square planters never did have handles. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new subway entrance would contain elevators directly above the platforms, thereby requiring the relocation of Broadway's southbound lanes to the west." I don't follow this. I thought it was only the northbound lanes that were affected?
    • The northbound lanes were closed completely, but the southbound lanes had to be shifted slightly as well. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The project was closed-out fourteen months late due to a setback in the installation of street lighting and acceptance by the New York City Department of Transportation." This sounds odd. I can see that delays to the street lighting could lead to delays in closing out the project, but what was the issue with acceptance? Acceptance is the end point, not an obstacle to completion of the project.
    • Unfortunately, the source does not elaborate further, but it might have had to do with the street lights, which are maintained by the DOT. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      OK -- struck, since the source doesn't give you anything more to work with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Not needed for GA:

  • I think we don't need the mention of the 1811 Commissioners' Plan in the lead; it's Broadway that's the cause of the park's shape; we don't need to know what caused Broadway. And the plan gets mentioned later in the lead anyway.
    • I am confused about what you mean. Did you mean to say that the Commissioners' Plan doesn't need to be mentioned at all, or that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraph? The plan created the street grid and thus the weirdly shaped intersection with Broadway, Amsterdam Avenue, and 72nd Street. Without the plan, the park probably would not have existed at all. Epicgenius (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I just meant we could remove the first reference to it. It's a minor point and I'm OK with leaving it in if you prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the clarification. I have removed the mention of the Commissioners' Plan in the first paragraph of the lead, since it's further elaborated upon in the third paragraph, anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Civiletti in the lead.
  • "About half of the park is built on": suggest "The western half of the park is built on", since that will tie in to the mention of the western half later in the lead.
  • "one of Verdi's operas": clearer to just say "Verdi's opera, Rigoletto".
  • "The New York City government acquired the site": suggest just "The city government acquired the site".
  • "which classifies the park as covering": phrasing it this way makes it sounds as though there's some doubt the number is accurate. Why wouldn't we just give the area, and cite the source?
  • "Originally, Verdi Square was actually a triangle": I don't think you need "actually", and I would suggest tying this to the 2003 expansion so the reader knows why it changed. Perhaps "Until it was expanded to the west in 2003, Verdi Square was a triangle".
    • I removed "actually", but I have to copy one of the other sources to cite the 2003 date. Epicgenius (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have dates for the creation of the Woodland and Meadow gardens? And if you can get a map/plan, indicating them on the map would be good.
    • Unfortunately, I could not find exact dates. Epicgenius (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The urns were inspired by bronze planters near one entrance to Prospect Park in Brooklyn, which were designed by Stanford White." Suggest "The urns were inspired by bronze planters, designed by Stanford White, near one entrance to Prospect Park in Brooklyn."
  • "on the grounds that it was redundant to a newsstand in the subway entrance": suggest "on the grounds that there was also a newsstand in the subway entrance".
  • "The monument had cost either $20,000 or $30,000 in total." I think it's better to be direct about conflicts in the sources; say something like "Newspapers of the day variously reported the cost of the monument as $20,000 or $30,000", or perhaps "Two newspapers of the day reported differing costs of the monument: $20,000 and $30,000".
  • "As part of a citywide "beautification" initiative announced in 1967, the city government would have planted trees and flowers in the park": but we don't know if this actually happened? Similarly, do we know if the 1976 fundraiser led to an actual renovation?
    • I couldn't find info on whether either of these proposals actually occurred. Epicgenius (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the detailed review. I've now responded to most of the above comments, but I'm still working on a few things, including a map of the site. Epicgenius (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, just checking in -- are you still working on a map or plan? It doesn't have to be fancy, but I think we need something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am still working on it. I just need to figure out how to download the data from OpenStreetMap, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the update. I'll check back in a week if I haven't heard from you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. I had another think about this and I think a small map showing the park layout would be helpful, but it's not really necessary for GA, so there's no reason to hold this up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review @Mike Christie. I appreciate it, and I will continue to work on the map. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Verdi_Square/GA1&oldid=1106278723"