Jump to content

Talk:Brooklyn Army Terminal

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

Brooklyn Army Terminal

[edit]

Brooklyn Army Terminal and Bush Terminal Yard, are they really the same thing? If not, all the pages that link either to the former or to the latter would need to be corrected. Peter Horn 12:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(including Elvis Presley)

[edit]

Would he not have been a tad too young to be going overseas during WW II ??? Peter Horn 22:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was there in 1957. After WW2.
Correct. See clarification/correction mentioned below. Caseyjonz (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

[edit]

In the first paragraph, "During World War II, the terminal was responsible for shipment of 85% of army equipment and personnel overseas; 38,000,000 tons of supplies and over 3 million soldiers." Was that 85% of the equipment & personnel shipped to the European theater of operations only, or 85% of shipments to the combined European & Pacific theaters? (If the latter, that would have been a lot of stuff and people going through the Panama Canal... I thought the soldiers, at least, mostly shipped out from San Francisco & San Diego.) A reference is needed for this statement. Caseyjonz (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited NYT article supported one fact mentioned in the above sentence: 3 million soldiers passed through the terminal (although this was through its closure in the 1970s, not through WW II). The rest of the "facts" are, so far, unsupported, so I deleted the sentence. Caseyjonz (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brooklyn Army Terminal. 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:

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) 12:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Brooklyn Army Terminal. 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:

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) 05:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA1 (2019)

[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 Review (29 July 2019)

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Brooklyn Army Terminal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I should have a review here before the weekend. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Overall, the article is pretty solid! Comments as follows:

  • General (3, 4, 5):
    • Based on how the article flows, I get why it makes the most sense to stick the history before the more in-depth description rather than reversed as it is now, but phrasing in the description left me a bit confused. The article suggests that the dimensions and composition of the Terminal have changed, but it's not ever explained in what sense. Is there are source that covers its expansion?
    • There are places where the usage of short/long/t (what is the t? Metric tons?) conversions starts getting in the way. In places where you're repeating numbers close together, such as ccording to contemporary news articles, the Brooklyn Army Base saw 43,000,000 short tons (38,392,857.14 long tons; 39,008,943.82 t) of cargo and was the point of departure for 3.5 million soldiers during World War II,[9][31] though the Brooklyn Army Terminal's website states that the Brooklyn Army Base handled 37,000,000 short tons (33,035,714.29 long tons; 33,565,835.38 t) of cargo and 3.2 million soldiers. I'd cut the second mention.
      • Metric tons. It makes sense because ST and LT are both imperial measurements, but it could also be clarified somewhat by adding |sp=us|abbr=off at the end of {{convert}}. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having metric tons spelled out helps, but is there a way to remove the dashes between words? In context it doesn't seem grammatically appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          David Fuchs, which examples have dashes between words? The only example I see is 5-short-ton (4.46-long-ton; 4.54-metric-ton) overhead movable crane moved cargo between the balconies epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose (1, 3):
    • Brooklyn Army Terminal was originally used as a United States Army terminal called the Brooklyn Army Base or Brooklyn Army Supply Base.—might sound better to swap "Brooklyn Army Terminal" with "The complex" or something else so you aren't repeating "army terminal" so baldly in the same sentence.
      • Fixed.
    • The scope of construction was so large that a special subway trip transported workers from Manhattan to the future Army Base, and prospective workers would line up outside the construction site every morning.—I'm a bit confused as to what the text is trying to say here. Were there specific subway cars for the workers? A special subway stop for them?
      • Clarified - an extra train was added to the schedule.
    • Three railroad tracks ran through the space between the warehouses, and an additional two tracks ran through the center of warehouse B. This mention of Warehouse B railroad tracks is redundant to the mention in the earlier paragraph, and should get reworded or removed so it's not repetitious.
      • Fixed.
    • The Brooklyn Army Base was one of five United States Army terminals whose construction was approved by United States Congress on May 6, 1918, to accommodate Army activity during World War I.—where were the others located? If it was the only one in the northeast/east coast or such, it might be worth mentioning.
      • Five in the east coast, one in the Gulf Coast; six in total. The names of the others may not be as important to the article. (This was a typo, I meant six terminals rather than five. It's now fixed.) epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some places such as A rigorous safety program was enacted after the war, resulting in an 85% decrease in industrial accidents at Brooklyn Army Terminal. where there's unnecessary passive voice or odd sentence constructions used that could be cleaned up, for example to A rigorous safety program enacted after the war resulted in an 85% decrease in industrial accidents at Brooklyn Army Terminal.
  • By 1963, the Brooklyn Army Terminal hired 1,800 civilians and over 200 military personnel, and another 1,600 people lived at the terminal. If this sentence is talking about the employees at that time rather than over a span of time, it should probably be "employed" rather than "hired". Same goes for other uses in the article.
      • Fixed.
    • A dispute arose between local business owners, who wanted a large post office facility in the terminal, and the city, who wanted to use it for an expanded foreign-trade zone.—this sentence is kind of odd in that the text has already told us about the post office and the foreign trade office but it's phrased as to introduce us to the usage ideas rather than who favored them (the new information.)
    • Any information as to why the NRHP listing is for an acreage larger than the stated dimensions early in the article? (ties in to my earlier comment).
    • A NYC Ferry slip opened at Brooklyn Army Terminal in May 2017. Not sure why this is here versus the imminent "Transportation" section.
    • A stop at Brooklyn Army Terminal was added to those trips in August 2013, following the closure of the Montague Street subway tunnel suspended direct service on the R train between Brooklyn and Manhattan.—missing a word/words or conjunction here between tunnel and suspended.
      • Oops. Fixed.
  • Media (6):
  • References (2):
    • Checklinks didn't show any major issues, although you should really make sure to archive the online sources before they go off-the-net.
    • Current ref 1 (NRHP): is it impossible to get a permanent link for the listing versus having to manually search?
      • Fixed.
    • Spotchecked statements attributed to current refs 2, 10, 15, 23, 31, 41, 60, 87, 93, 106, and 120.
      • 2 doesn't fully support Brooklyn Army Terminal covered 95 acres (38 ha).—only mentions roughly 90 acres.
        • Added a source to BAT's website which mentions 97 acres, and NRHP which mentions 97.2 acres. Source #2 was supposed to verify the other portion of the sentence, so I moved it. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other spot-checks didn't reveal problems.

Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:00, 2 August 2019 (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.

David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (2019)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Brooklyn Army Terminal
Brooklyn Army Terminal
  • ... that when completed one hundred years ago, the Brooklyn Army Terminal was the world's largest concrete building? Source: NY Daily News "The gigantic beige concrete complex, planned for storage of military wares for World War I, was completed in 1919. At the time, it was the largest concrete building in the world."

Created by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 00:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Epicgenius: Good work. GA, well cited, neutral, no copyvio detected. ALT1 and ALT2 lines should be inline cited in the article. ALT0 is cited. I find ALT0 the most interesting and it also says 100 years ago. So it will be most suited for September 100th anniversary run. Please add inline citation for ALT1/2 in the article. Everything else is OK. Why don't you choose an image to go with this DYK? It would be good if it is published as a DYK with an image. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image is freely licensed and will look good at 100x100 px. Hooks are cited. Good to Go. ALT0 is most interesting to me but promoter can choose. Please note that nominator wants it to appear on its 100th anniversary in September.-Nizil (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius (talk). 00:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brooklyn_Army_Terminal&oldid=1213997143"