Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Park/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [1].

Central Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a large public park in Manhattan, New York City. Built to a careful plan by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, Central Park is one of the most visited places in NYC, if not the world. There are many interesting features about this park, such as eight waterways, six miles of roads, plenty of woods, sporting fields, landmarks, a zoo, a museum, and numerous events that are hosted there. The history of the park is complex and interesting as well, with two periods of decline followed by wide-ranging rehabilitation programs.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from SilkTork. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. The article is quite long, but I feel that it's warranted, given that it's classified as a vital article. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork

[edit]

To assist in assessing the article, it's worth repeating the criteria here:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

I was impressed with the work that epicgenius had done on the article when I did the GA review, and also with their responsive and helpful manner. I will take a look at how it fits some of the FA criteria, though I won't have time to look into all aspects, such as the "comprehensive" requirement. I was satisfied it met the "broad coverage" of GA, but to ensure it meets "comprehensive" requires a bit more reading and research than I have time for right now.

For those looking at this FA who may be a little put off by the size of the article, epicgenius's prose (at least when I read it for GA) is clear and readable, and the article well organised into digestible chunks. SilkTork (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria:

1A - well-written. Criteria met The prose is clear, readable and informative. It has improved since the GA, and is of a professional standard.SilkTork (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1B - comprehensive. It has the broad coverage required of GA. I have not researched enough of the topic to judge if it meets comprehensive, though I suspect it does, and will not object if the consensus is that the article should become featured. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raising a concern here regarding coverage of music in the park. Ping me when this has been addressed so I can strike this concern. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1C - well researched. As with comprehensive, I have not done a thorough review of available sources on the topic, though I was impressed with the research done for the GA, and if I recall there wasn't much (if anything) that I turned up in my GA review research that wasn't already in the article. So I would not object if the consensus is that the article should become featured. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1D - neutral. Criteria met I found the article neutral when I did the GA review, and I have looked through the additions since, and nothing has changed. It still remains neutral. SilkTork (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1E: stable. The criteria for FA is slightly different to GA. The GA stable criteria is: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", and it passes that. But FA is: "and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." So for FA, the changes do not need to be because of a dispute. The intention is that when an article comes to FA it is reasonably complete in terms of content, detail, and prose. If changes are still occurring, that is suggestive that the article is not yet complete. The article has undergone recent changes. Material on census tract was removed yesterday: [2], and the day before the Further reading section was removed: [3]. The debate would be if such changes are "significant". For me, the article is stable, and I don't see such positive ongoing editing as harmful to the article or to its status as a FA. I will, though, pay attention to anyone who has concerns regarding stability. SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: Thanks for your comments and observations. I really appreciate them. In response to your concerns about criteria 1E: one can say these edits were made in response to the featured article process, i.e. in preparation for nominating this article. In terms of additions, I didn't add anything major. epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any significant issues with the criteria in part 1, including 1E: stable. I don't have the time to examine 1B - comprehensive and 1C - well researched any further than I did for GA, but I have no reason to think that the article doesn't meet those criteria. And I am very comfortable that the article meets 1E - stable, even if the wording of the criteria is not clear; like you, I can't imagine that it would refer to positive edits made in preparation for the FA review - though I'm slightly unsure as to what it might refer to. SilkTork (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2A - a lead. Not met. This is my first genuine quibble. The lead, to be fair, hasn't changed significantly since the GA, but if I was doing a GA again today, I would ensure the lead contains a summary from each of the main sections in the article. I raised it as an issue in the GA, but I don't think I followed up on it as closely as I could have. Looking again now I see that Cultural significance, which has a spin off article, Central Park in popular culture, is summed up by "and is one of the most filmed locations in the world" (which, incidentally, doesn't quite match what is said in the main body: "Central Park is the most filmed location in the world" - can you check to see if it is "the most filmed" or "one of the most filmed"). And while looking at the spin off article I was aware that some very famous concerts are not mentioned in that article, such as The Concert in Central Park. The lack of mention of the concerts would also come under 1B - comprehensive. The classic concerts are mentioned in the main body, but not the pop, rock and reggae concerts. And I just noticed that the classic concerts are mentioned in the body but not in the lead. SilkTork (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the thinking behind Cultural significance and Concerts and performances being in two different sections in the main article, but discussed together in Central Park in popular culture? Oooooh. I just noticed that in Central Park in popular culture in the Music section it says: " Numerous concerts have been hosted in the park, mentioned [[#Entertainment|above]]". But these are not mentioned above. I've taken a look back at the article, and found an older form from just over a year ago, which mentioned the concerts: [4]. That older form is unsourced, but does appear to contain useful information. SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the claim from the older article, "The oldest free classical music concert series in the United States—the Naumburg Orchestral Concerts, founded in 1905...", something that might be true? It might be worth looking into. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Basically, "Cultural significance" is talking about events that mention the park, while "Concerts and performances" talks about events from the park. I've tried to expand the lead without having it become too bloated. Because we do have a Central Park in culture sub-article, the concerts and performances in this article are summarized. Nevertheless, I'll try to add some brief examples. epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2B - appropriate structure. Criteria met. There is an appropriate structure. I tend to prefer fewer sub-sections as, per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." For example, I wouldn't have Sculptures and Structures and exhibitions as subsections of Art and monuments. And I might consider in Landscape features, using a WP:Definition list markup instead of sub-headings, but these are personal preferences, and the article works fine as it is. Indeed, as I said at the start, there is a compelling argument for using the bite size sub-sections to ease navigation and digestion of such a long text. SilkTork (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2C - consistent citations. I have never quite understood this criteria, and I can recall in a couple of my FAs someone requiring me to go through and ensure each citation was written out exactly the same way. I don't think it means that. I think it means using either Harvard or standard footnotes but not both together, as using both together creates two different ways of presenting citations. The article currently does use both the more standard footnote citation alongside the Harvard footnote citation, so technically fails this criteria. For example, Cite 1 uses the standard footnote ( "About Us". Central Park Conservancy. 2014. Archived from the original on March 26, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.). While Cite 2 uses the Harvard footnote (Central Park Conservancy 2011, p. 9.). Personally I don't think it matters, as both can be understood. But if we are to have such a criteria for an FA then it should be met. The article should either have all standard or all Harvard. If selecting one style over the other, I would strongly recommend the standard style as that being the most helpful to readers and researchers. With the Harvard style you have to look in two places to get all the information (link/full book title and page number are in two different places); while with the standard you get all the information in the single citation. However, while flagging this up, I would say that it's not an issue for me, so I'm not raising it as an objection. But if you want the FA flag with all the criteria met, then there should be consistency in citation style. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3 - Media. Criteria met. Only one image has been added since the GA review, and I've checked that, and it's fine. The media criteria is the same as for GA, and nothing substantial has changed, so this is fine. SilkTork (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4 Length. Criteria met. This is the same criteria as for GA, and nothing substantial has been added, so this is OK. SilkTork (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a big difference these days between GA and FA. The main difference is that good articles only require broad coverage, while featured articles require comprehensive; and featured articles require consistent citation, while good article only require that there are organised citations. Of the criteria I looked at, the only concerns I can see are that the lead doesn't quite summarise the content, and that there may not be enough coverage of music in the park. I wouldn't be able to fully support this as I don't have the time to do the comprehensive research required, but once my quibbles are satisfied I certainly wouldn't have any objections. I think this is a fine article. Ping me when my quibbles have been addressed so I can strike them. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Thanks for the comments. Regarding the distinction of standard vs. Harv citations - I think both may be used interchangeably, e.g. in the articles about Statue of Liberty and The Cloisters (which both passed with both standard and Harv citations), and even in my recent nomination of Barren Island, Brooklyn, where a similar issue was brought up. It would be more inconsistent if one were to use citations both with templates and with no templates, or both CS1/CS2 type citations, which should not be the case here. But this is open to interpretation, so let me know what you think.
I have slightly expanded the lead to include a short summary of every top-level section as well. Do you think the lead is sufficient or should I add more?
I also added a few examples of concerts and other musical events at the park. Let me know if that's enough or if I should elaborate a bit more. I really appreciate the detailed feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments by Ceoil

[edit]

Will take a closer look at this next weekend. Early impressions are good, though it may need to tightening words wise here and there. Nothing fatal than can see so far. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

Reviewing... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but after remaining open more than six weeks this review has stalled, so I'm going to archive it. You can re-nom after the usual 2-week break has passed, and feel free to ping the above reviewers for another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Central_Park/archive1&oldid=970383807"