Jump to content

Talk:Sunset Park, Brooklyn/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: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 21:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a try on this one, will post a review as soon as possible.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happypillsjr, thanks for giving this a try. As we discussed, have you asked Kingsif or another experienced reviewer for advice yet? epicgenius (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Happypillsjr, if you wanted to work on this together, that could work, too. Kingsif (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:, I don't mind that.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 04:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr: Were you planning on starting this? I could give you some questions to ponder to help reviewing, maybe?
  • Does it have images? If yes, where are they from? Is what the image shows mentioned in text? Is it in the right place? Does it look good? Does it have a caption? Does the article have other illustration, like infoboxes and tables (any other media that's not text)? If it has wikipedia templates and tables, are they formatted and used correctly? If it has other media, is it licensed correctly? Do they work well in the places where they are? - If you think the answer to any of these is 'no', it should be noted under 'Media'.
  • Can you understand all of the text? Does it read well - i.e. sentences flow from one to another without jumping to bits of information, it is easy to read, it is interesting to read? Does it use wikilinks where appropriate? If it has jargon, is this explained? Is the article well structured? Is the format in line with the MOS appropriate to the subject?
  • Does everything have an in-line citation? Can sources be found in the article? Are all the sources reliable?
  • Is there any copyright infringement of text or images? (earwig copyvio tool for text is in the GA toolbox to the right; you can reverse search any commons images that seem suspicious. If a non-free/fair-use image is used, check its rationale.)
  • Check the article history and the talk page - are there any recent edit wars or disruption, or any ongoing discussions about content? If yes, the article may not be stable and could change significantly soon.
  • Reading the article, does it go off topic? If yes, it may not be focused. Does it contain everything you expect it to, and not leave you wanting for relevant information?
  • Again, having read it, does the tone in any place sound promotional, negative, or any other subjective manner? If yes, it may not entirely be neutral. Are all controversial statements cited with sources that mention the views, and there's no writing to make simple statements sound good or bad? Are opinions cited and (generally) attributed?
Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Sorry, I was busy with other articles but I looked at all the images and these images are self-published work and my strong opinion is the images are kind of look good on each title of this article. No Wiki tables but there is one only image gallery. Second, while using the earwig copyvio tool detector, there's a 25% unlikely violation and checked the article's history and I don't any edit wars or disruption. Also as I read the article, I assume there is a grammar that needs to be fixed like some words don't need commas, most words need commas and there is a sentence maybe consider wordies. So I under most of the text of the article so far.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr:
  • Okay, so you're saying that the media looks good. Follow up question: do you think the image gallery is used well? I'll add your comments to the list below.
  • Remember with the copyvio tool that you shouldn't just look at the number - it gives you a comparison for each source of the article text (left) vs the source text, highlighting anything that appears word-for-word in both. Sometimes big numbers just means a short source with a long quote, but that's fine. Other times, a small number can actually be a long source with heavy borrowings of shorter sentences. Look over the comparisons. I just did a check, and in this case, what flags the most is names of organizations, which can't be changed.
  • You say you "assume" that there are instances where the grammar needs to be fixed. What makes you think that? Not every article has messed-up grammar.
  • I don't understand what you mean when you say "most words need commas and there is a sentence maybe consider wordies"
Kingsif (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I should've rephrased that grammar part I said but there's one sentence, After New York abolished slavery in 1827, there were 55 African Americans living in the area., could it be "After New York abolished slavery in 1827, 55 African Americans were living in the area". I was meant that this sentence is wordy.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is fine - your suggestion only removes one word, and would have both two numbers next to each other and a number following punctuation. Are there any other parts of concern? Kingsif (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Nothing else in particular.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 04:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr: So you're saying it meets every other part of the criteria? Could you elaborate for me, for the benefit of having a complete review. It reads well? No issues with grammar? All the sources have been checked? There's no gaps in coverage? No places where it details something irrelevant? No issues with tone? All statements and implications attributed? Everything that needs to be cited is? And can you give some examples from the article of each criteria being met? Kingsif (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I just re-read the article and it turns out the grammar is good which no issues and all sources are very good.
@Happypillsjr: Your lack of specifics isn't filling me with confidence, and won't give the nominator any idea of the article's strengths and weaknesses. It also sounds very arbitrary to say 'I read it and there are no issues'. We could approach the writing section-by-section? Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: We can definitely approach the writing section-by-section.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 01:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr: So what do you think of the lead? Is it a good length when reading the whole article? Does it accurately reflect the content of the article? Are there any mistakes? Is it written neutrally? Is there anything confusing? Are wikilinks used, and are they appropriate? Kingsif (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Still there's no mistakes and there's no confusion to read.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr: That still doesn't quite answer all the questions. If everything is fine, that's good, as long as you've looked at all the details. Have you read MOS:LEADLENGTH, for example? Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC) @Happypillsjr: Kingsif (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I don't think Happypillsjr got the ping. It needs to be done on a separate line. epicgenius (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr: Kingsif (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: and @Epicgenius:, Sorry guys I was been busy other stuff but Kingsif I trying to understand and answering your question but there's no confusion when I read the article and the lead length of the article, 2-5 paragrphs on each sections. -- Happypillsjr ✉ 17:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happypillsjr: Being able to understand it is good, but that's not the only criteria. So the lead is a good length, okay. Does it accurately reflect the content of the article and cover all major points? Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-written:
    • Lead an appropriate length
  • Verifiable/No OR:
  • Broad:
  • Neutral:
  • Stable:
    • No evidence of edit wars or disruption
  • Media:
    • All images self-published
    • Images look good
    • Image gallery
  • Copyright: check is clean


Comments from Kingsif

[edit]
  • Is the gallery (with large images) of schools needed? Maybe one for the section?
  • Article relatively image-heavy. The subways, the churches, the play center, the landmarks, 8th Av. OR Chinatown, Alku Toinen, Brooklyn Army Terminal, Sunset Park, 5th Av., are good. But I feel the schools, 653 52nd Street, one of the Chinese demo images, and the factory are unnecessary.
  • Infobox good
  • Lead on the shorter side of being a good length
  • Do refs need to be in the lead? None of them seem to be controversial or not later mentioned
  • Copyright and stability good, as above
  • Sources look good
  • Everything seems to be cited inline
  • Early settlement subsection good (i.e. checked for style, neutrality, coverage)
  • Repetition of established around a clause at Transit to South Brooklyn was established, starting with a ferry service to the cemetery, which was established in 1846
    • Fixed.
  • At n 1888, landowners delivered "a petition for local improvements" to be effected upon some 7,500 lots located from Third to Ninth Avenues between 39th and 65th Streets, which were estimated to be worth about $1 million - is this 1MM in 1888 or at the time of the 1988 source?
  • Rest of 19th century good
  • A bit confused of the grammar toward the end of For much of 1908, there were legal disagreements about whether the project could be paid-for, and remain within the city's debt limit
  • Early 20th century otherwise good
  • Is there a simpler way to say "socioeconomic bifurcation"?
    • Reworded.
  • decimating the last vestiges of the business district built around the Third Avenue Line is a bit hyperbolic, it should also be simpler
    • Reworded.
  • Seems to be some contradiction where it says (if hyperbolic) that industry was destroyed post-WWII, but there were still "a large number of industrial jobs" for Puerto Ricans in the 60s? Clarity needed on this
    • It wasn't necessarily wholly destroyed at once, but the decline happened over some time. This process was just hastened with the closing of the Brooklyn Army Terminal in 1966. epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have wikilink for blockbusting
  • Redevelopment good
  • Demographics section good
  • Land use intro and Residential stock subsection good
  • Landmarks section good
  • Power and waste good
  • Other points of interest good - the 'circa' could be made into 'c.', but it should be fine
  • Police and crime seems succinct, but also establishes that it has generally lower crime than NYC, so if there's nothing notable or more specific, this is good
  • Ditto with fire
  • Preterm and teenage births seems to conflate the two terms to suggest preterm mothers or teenage babies... is there another possible phrasing?
  • Same notes on Health section as with police and fire
  • Is there nothing more on politics?
  • The post office/zip code section seems to be too minor to be its own section, is there somewhere else the info could go?
    • This is probably the most suitable section for this info, other than a geography section, which doesn't exist in this article (and would not be a good fit anyway). Also, this is consistent with other articles on NYC neighborhoods. epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green spaces good, particularly good handling of coverage for the park Sunset Park
  • Religion good, though the images could be a bit smaller
  • Education looks fine, though the long lists could be condensed into a table (or given some prose if there is any coverage), and the above notes on images
  • Made some tweaks to Transportation, which is good
  • on hold See comments above, well-written article with some questions Kingsif (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2020 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sunset_Park,_Brooklyn/GA1&oldid=1015849285"