Talk:Mill Basin, Brooklyn/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: hi! I've just wrapped up my first runthrough of the GA nomination. Please read over the comments below. Looking forward to seeing this one through with you. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Should the fact that the area is part of Brooklyn Community Board 18 be given such prominence? Perhaps move to last para of lead. @Ganesha811: Done. epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Why "the area around Mill Basin" and not just "Mill Basin"? What level of area are census data available for? Census data is available per tabulation area, not necessarily per neighborhood. This ties into why Southeast Brooklyn is mentioned so much in the demographics section. By my findings, reliable sources don't exist for strictly Mill Basin. Not sure the drawbridge needs to be in lead - if retained, though, should be given own sentence. Removed. In 'Geography' if the meadows were at sea level wouldn't they be part of the sea? Maybe "lowland" or "low-lying"? Low-lying is correct. "A bulkhead was built along the shore..." - to clarify, Mill Island's shore? Or Long Island's? Rephrase. Yes, Mill Island's shore. Given that only one sentence is given to Elbertse in 'History', maybe his reference in the lead should be removed and replaced by an expanded reference to Jans Schenck, who built the first house on the island. Done. "It is said... pirate" - while certainly interesting, "it is said" is using weasel words - who says this? Fixed. In 'Community', "has been characterized as a suburban community with a...." - characterized by who? Fixed. The second paragraph and third paragraph of 'Community' shade into too much detail. Removed unsourced claim. These are mostly describing the housing stock of the neighborhood, which tend to be low-density mansions. Do we need the paragraph in 'Recreation' on Strike 10 lanes? As written, seems promotional. Trimmed that section. In "Transportation", the term "double leaf" should be defined or linked to - leaf is jargon, in context, and should be defined. Fixed with some rewording. The 'Religion' section, as it is so short, should be folded into 'Community' or 'Demographics.' I don't feel it belongs in either section, but let me think about it. epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Overall, the prose is good - I did a quick copyedit. One thing of note - there are quite a few references to "the surrounding area" or "Southeast Brooklyn." While I understand this is relevant to Mill Basin, at times the article feels a little overstuffed with info not strictly about Mill Basin. I would recommend some editing of these areas. Issues addressed by nominator. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well sourced. Relies on Frederick Black's piece in some sections, but the breadth of other sources makes this a non-issue. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Mostly reliable news sources. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It's a detailed article but not unnecessarily. Each section is relevant and interesting. History is unusually detailed but not without purpose. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No non-neutrality detectable. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Most work done in November 2018. No edit wars. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass!

Pass! Nice article. Congrats to @Epicgenius: and all others who worked on it. I'll do the needful now and close up this review. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)