Talk:Brooklyn Army Terminal/GA1

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)

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

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?
  - @David Fuchs: It's not that it was ever expanded. However, the article from 1918 predates the opening of the actual terminal, and there are no comparable articles about the dimensions of the BAT following it's completion. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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]
      - I could swear there were more, but I guess I was looking at it too early in the morning. Regardless, I'll take another look at the article today and see if there are any remaining issues, otherwise I'll pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:09, 6 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.
  - I fixed some. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.)
  - I don't understand what you mean by this. I don't think it was mentioned that the business owners favored the post office. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~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).~~
  - It may include parking lots and streets. However, BAT's own website gives an area of 97 acres, which is on par with what the NRHP listing covers. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~A NYC Ferry slip opened at Brooklyn Army Terminal in May 2017. Not sure why this is here versus the imminent "Transportation" section.~~
  - It is also included in the transportation section. I think the slip was there before, but was adapted for NYC Ferry use. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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):
- All images claimed as freely licensed.
- File:Brooklyn Army Base, New York, between the wars.png—this is being used under a claim of PD, but there's not really adequate sourcing information to verify this. It appears to be a screenshot from a video, not a still, and no provenance info is forthcoming.
  - I replaced this. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Other images look fine.
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]

Thanks for the review. I've replied to your comments above. epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 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.