Talk:Fort Tryon Park

Fort Tryon Park has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 13, 2020. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Fort Tryon Park appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 February 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Fort Tryon Park, located on steep terrain in Manhattan, was designed as a landscaped park with the Cloisters museum as the main point of interest?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fort Tryon Park.

Wikipedia

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Unsourced Material

Article has been tagged for needing references since 2010. Please feel free to reincorporate this material with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

==Restoration==

As the City of New York suffered severe budget constraints in the 1970s and funds for parks were decimated, Fort Tryon Park fell into disuse and disrepair and its gardens, woodlands, and playgrounds became havens for a range of illegal activities. The Park’s decline continued until the 1980s when funds became available and restoration efforts began.

In 1983, the Greenacre Foundation, in conjunction with the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, engaged the landscape architecture firm of Quennell Rothschild & Partners to create a master plan for the restoration of Fort Tryon Park, including plans for the restoration of the Heather Garden that would closely follow the Olmsted design. [1] Parks Department Horticulturist Jane Schachat and Greenacre Foundation Horticulturist Timothy Steinhoff ordered thousands of plants to reflect the varieties used in the Olmsted design.

Although the Heather Garden was designed to flower in spring and summer, plants were added to extend bloom time. Where possible, beds were laid out according to the original plan, taking into account vistas and the large remaining shrubs. During this restoration, Parks Department gardeners planted more than 2,500 heathers, heaths and brooms, along with 15,000 bulbs, 5,000 perennials, 500 shrubs and 5 trees. This initial restoration took three years.

The Parks' Department continued to advance the restoration of the Heather Garden and other areas of Fort Tryon Park. The Parks Department has made more than $15 million in private and city funded capital improvements to the park since the 1983 restoration.

Founded in 1983, the Friends of Fort Tryon Park, inc. was established to involve the entire community surrounding the park in maintaining and improving the park's appearance and condition and promoting its use by the public. Such involvement and cooperation helped solidify and enliven this community and make it and the park more attractive, safe and desirable. In 2007 discussions established the to merge the Friends with the Trust, for unified advocacy and fundraising. In May 2009 the Friends became The Friends Committee of the Fort Tryon Park Trust.

In early 2000, the Fort Tryon Park Trust was formed to promote the restoration, preservation and enhancement of this historic and scenic landmark for the benefit and use of the surrounding community and all New Yorkers. The Trust plans to achieve this through advocacy and fundraising, working in partnership with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation and other organizations.

The Fort Tryon Park Trust has a goal of raising a $15 million endowment for sustaining the park, and has already raised over $2 million for the Heather Garden. Additional gifts from the Peter Jay Sharp Foundation and the Arthur Ross Foundation will be put towards the restoration of the Alpine Garden and the creation of a Winter Walk, respectively.

In 1995, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation initiated a partnership with New York Restoration Project, a non-profit organization founded by Bette Midler, to assist with cleaning and maintaining Fort Tryon Park.

In popular culture

As discussed at WP:IPC, and as it is my understanding is the general practice at many articles here that incorporate such sections, when adding "in popular culture" items secondary sourcing should be provided establishing that the references are significant in some manner. We do not need an indiscriminate list of occurrences of Fort Tryon Park in films; rather we should focus on scenarios where the occurrence received notice from independent sources. Additionally the current listings make claims that should be verifiable via references. DonIago (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YOur understand is incorreect. Popcult entries which are straightforward description are, in fact, sourced by the media item (book, film, etc) which they refer to. Only those which stray into interpretation or analysis need to be sourced. BMK (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we'll need to hear from other editors so we can get a consensus one way or the other. DonIago (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Tryon Park. 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) 14:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Tryon Park. 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) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Tryon Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well-written

Prose clear, concise, and understandable

See some of the comments below

Spelling/Grammar

I corrected a few minor issues as I went along.

Lead

Layout

Buzzwords/fiction/lists

2. Verifiable

No original research

List of references properly formatted

Inline citations from RS

No COPYVIO

None detected.

3. Broad in coverage

Covers main aspects

Stays on topic

, but see comment below at the public image section

4. Neutral Y

5. Stable Y

6. Illustrated if possible

Media tagged for copyright status

Images all appear to be tagged as uploader's own work except for one, which is tagged as a donated image. There is no obvious reason to doubt the own work tags.

Media relevant

I have one concern about the media. One of the images, the image of patrons on the lawn, shows a fairly close, high-enough resolution to be recognizable shot of a patron's face. I'm not super familiar with the nuances of privacy law, but is this a situation in which the subject would have to give permission for the image to be released? The person would not be trackable to get said permission, so somebody probably better look into the applicable privacy law with that.

@Hog Farm: I don't think this should be an issue, as it is not disallowed in Wikimedia Commons, but I'll look into replacing it. I took hundreds of pictures of the park a couple months ago. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: That ought to be good again. Since Commons doesn't disallow it, that'll work. Hog Farm (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

"Geography and geology" Is "inter-laid" usually hyphenated? I've always seen it as "interlaid." Also, the redlink to Dyckman Street Fault should be taken care of, either through removal of the wikilinks or article creation.

Resolved the "interlaid".
Removed the redlink. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Site" "As of 1711, leaders declared" Which leaders?

Harlem leaders. I fixed this. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Late-20th and early-21st century improvements" WP:SEAOFBLUE at "Bette Midler's nonprofit organization, New York Restoration Project. I'd recommend "nonprofit organization" to be the one to be delinked.

Rearranged the sentence to retain all of the link. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Plantings" Is "Picnic Grounds" a specifically-named portion of the park? If not, it shouldn't be capitalized.

Yes, it is a proper name for the park feature, per the NYCLPC report. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Playgrounds" "a triangle-shaped play area that primarily serves Inwood" What is Inwood?

It is a neighborhood. This was explained in the lead. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Cloisters" Should the first b in "belgian blocks" be capitalized?

Yes, I have done that. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Linden Terrace" The point is the highest spot in the Manhattan landscape, but not the highest spot in Manhattan. You should probably explain what you mean by this in the article.

It is the highest landscape feature, which is what the Times says. I.e. the highest point on Manhattan that doesn't require climbing a skyscraper. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Concession building" SEAOFBLUE from the improvements section again.

Removed the duplicate link. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caption of the gazebo image I don't believe that gazebo should be capitalized in that usage.

Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Public use and perception" I think listing the number of citations for public intercourse in 2018 constitutes excessive detail, although you may disagree with me about this.

Done this. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the references yet, I'll get along to that soon. I've left some preliminary comments about the other criteria. Good work. Hog Farm (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Source 1: This takes me to a search function page. It would be nice to have the link directly to the subsite where Fort Tryon Park is listed, if possible.

Source 146: Is a bare reference name.

Fixed both source 1 and 146. Now both are combined under a single source. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Two of the external links, the Friends of the Park link and the Annual Medieval Festival link, are links to Wayback Machine page archives. I'm not sure if that is compatible with the requirement at WP:LINKSTOAVOID that external links be to a functioning website.

Removed one of the links & replaced the other. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very good. See my notes above, most of the issues should be fairly easy fixes. Hog Farm (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Linden Terrace in Fort Tryon Park

... that Fort Tryon Park (pictured) contains Manhattan's highest landscape feature, though not its highest natural point? Source: NY Times 1997
- ALT1:... that Fort Tryon Park (pictured), located on steep terrain in Manhattan, was designed as a landscaped park with the Cloisters museum as the main point of interest? Source: NYCLPC p. 8, NPS p. 3

Reviewed: World's Largest Stove
Comment: Pictured is Linden Terrace, the highest landscape feature in Manhattan, located in the park.

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 16:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Wow. This one is a labour of love, clearly - respect. Good to go. Storye book (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

I reverted the "copy edits" made by Baffle gab 1978 since, in general, they did not improve the article. Not only did they reduce the quality of the prose to a level I would expect to find on Simple English Wikipedia, but some of the changes were actually incorrect grammatically. These edits should not be restored unless there is a consensus here that they improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do agree with the reversion. A few of the changes were harmless, but many were indeed incorrect. More importantly, subtle changes in meaning were introduced, or outright errors such as changing the location of Ft. George, or substituting "United Kingdom" for "Great Britain". Station1 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken and Station1: Thanks for the replies. I've asked to cancel the copyedit request. I should've discussed with you first, but as it happens, I forgot about that. I wanted to potentially bring this up to a higher quality later, maybe even match the featured article quality of the Cloisters. So that's why I wanted a second opinion.

Baffle gab1978, sorry for wasting your time. I generally think your edits are good, but it does seem that some of the edits are incorrect, which I had intended to fix afterward. epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If copy edits are improvements, there should be no need to correct them. Simply put, copy edits which need to be corrected are bad copy edits. I would suggest to Baffle gab that they find another line of work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I was trying to fix the references, but I see you've reverted these edits. I have fixed these refs again, but kept the previous wording. epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]