Talk:High Line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this. My other half used to live in New York State and popped round to have a look at it some years back (of course over that side of "the pond" "popped in" is a five hour drive) and said it was a great way to bring life to the city.

Lead

"The third and final phase officially opened to the public September 21, 2014" - this might be a US English thing, so feel free to serve seafood if necessary, but should that not be on September 21, 2014?
Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and the second phase opening in 2011" - do you really need four inline citations to say that? You can probably get away with removing a lot of the citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE, though they don't all have to be removed. In general, I feel that citation clutter in the lead can be distracting to the casual reader who just wants to know what this is.
Removed 3 refs. Thanks for pointing it out. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Route Map" link doesn't seem to do anything, though I don't think that's a specific fault of this article
{{Attached KML}} is used. The link to edit Template:Attached KML/High Line (New York City) is at the bottom. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rail line

There isn't much telling us why the railway was built in the first place. Was it to connect communities, to alleviate congestion from horse / coach traffic, both or something else? And why was the railway street level - cost or planning problems?
It was to ship freight. I have added that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was the West Side Improvement Project?
I have also added info. Thank you for pointing it out. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It cost over $150 million, equating to about $2 billion in 2009 dollars" - you might want to consider using {{inflation}} which will keep the figures up to date
Added. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This also reduced pilferage" - what do you mean by "pilferage"?
Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This section still exists as of May 18, 2008" - bit of out date, isn't this?
That is the most recent date for which I have a source. I will try to find a more recent source. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In the 1960s, the southernmost section of the line was demolished." - unless I'm mistaken, the lead says specifically it was demolished in 1960. One of these must be wrong?
It was specifically 1960. I have corrected that. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The last train on the remaining part of the line was operated by Conrail in 1980 with three carloads of frozen turkeys." - why are the frozen turkeys significant?
They aren't. That's what the source says, though... Anyway, it is now gone. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"During the late 1980s, the north end of the High Line was disconnected from the rest of the national railroad system" - although West Side Line has the specifics, I think it would be worth clarifying here how the construction of a station resulted in the disconnection of a line, which to me sounds non-intuitive
Good point. I have added another reference. It was about to be destroyed the same year the connection was made. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It was slated for demolition under the administration of then-mayor Rudy Giuliani." - Do we know when exactly, other than "1990s"?
There is no exact date, because it actually was slated for demolition during much of that decade. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing

"residents of the neighborhood that the High Line ran through." - just "the line ran through" should do here, we know the context of what line from the preceding sentence
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to what the Great Museums source is. If it's a journal, it would make sense to add page numbers if appropriate
It is a documentary. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way of making that clearer in the citation, I wonder? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Broadened community support of public redevelopment for the High Line for pedestrian use grew" - suggest "'redevelopment of the High Line"
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On April 10, 2006, then-Mayor Bloomberg" - don't need "then"
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diane von Furstenberg and Diane von Fürstenberg are linked twice, but are the same person. Per WP:LASTNAME, the "Fürstenbergs" could be dropped here. We can simply say "and von Fürstenberg with Diller and her children Alexander and Tatiana" (with links)
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On June 7, 2011, a ribbon was cut" - per WP:REFBLOAT, does this paragraph really need four citations to verify everything? The New York Times source in particular, includes some additional facts, such as the drinking fountains, which may be worth adding to the article here
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This source is a dead link
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and ended in September 2014" - this claim is cited to six sources. That doesn't sound right
Removed the entire statement. It is redundant to the paragraph immediately below. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes webcitation.org a reliable source?
I wonder why is it archived to begin with. It is not dead. I removed the archive url. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the northernmost section, from 30th to 34th Streets, is owned by CSX Transportation" - the source says it's owned by "Coach Inc"
Coach Inc. owns 10 Hudson Yards, right above the High Line spur. It can be confusing. Even I was confused at first. =) Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

"The recycling of the railway into an urban park has bought on the revitalization of Chelsea" - might be worth (using the source supplied) dropping in a brief description of what Chelsea was like before the park was opened
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times' source here says "The High Line has become a tourist-clogged catwalk and a catalyst for some of the most rapid gentrification in the city’s history." That might be worth mentioning as a counter-point to the otherwise positive reception to the line
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Crime has been, unusually, extraordinarily low in the park" - Why "unusually? Were people expecting it to be a muggers' paradise?
Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"despite the Central Park's location in tony Upper Manhattan" - what does "tony" mean here?
Since I removed the clause, it is resolved. There won't any problems with the removal of the phrase, will there? Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It costs substantially less to redevelop an abandoned urban rail line into a linear park than to demolish it" - the information in the source is subtly different; it says "One group estimates that it would cost less to redevelop the viaduct than to demolish it"
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes [www.thequeensway.org] a reliable source?
I replaced the ref. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description

This section probably wants to go right at the top. Start out by saying what the line is and where it is, then go into specifics later. I had to keep scrolling the page up to the top to see the map so I could work out where Grosvenor Street and 34th Street were.
You mean Gansevoort Street? Anyway, I've moved it, and fixed the image layout. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth integrating the description into the map. I'm not sure exactly how you could tackle that, but for a similar example, Mellotron includes a picture of the instrument's operation with numerical marks, which the caption then explains fuller.
I will find a way to perhaps do that. Maybe I will do it in the KML instead, as it is easier to edit. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section has quite a few links that have already been mentioned earlier, such National Biscuit Company
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Then, it passes under The Standard hotel,[33][62] and then through a passage at 14th Street." - suggest "It then passes under The Standard hotel and through a passage at 14th Street"
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There are also seesaw-like and xylophonic benches" - is "xylophonic" a real word?
Maybe. It has been reworded. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph in the "Route" section seems to be more focused on opening times
Part of the main Description section now. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attractions

thehighline.org/design/planting redirects to www.thehighline.org/visit, and doesn't contain the information to verify the claims preceding it
Archived. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes urbdezene.com a reliable source?
Oh. I thought it was a reliable source. It's a blog. Well... Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the planting, which includes 210 species...." - the link citing the entirety of the rest of this paragraph is dead
Archived. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The High Line Park has cultural attractions as well" - suggest "The park also has cultural attractions"
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

what makes notreviews.blogspot.com a reliable source?
Removed dubious claim to begin with. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and the natural flora of the High Line" - just "natural flora of the line" will do here
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The book also contained essays by Adam Gopnik and John R. Stilgoe" - worth clarifying who these people are
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this link to thehighline.org blog is dead
Archived. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"With the opening of the High Line Park, many films and television shows have set sequences in the park." - don't need "in the park" - "there" will do
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear exactly how the eyeliner ties in with the park
I removed it for now. It's a relatively recent addition, but I can't find any sources that the eyeliner is relevant. It may refer to other High Lines. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm concerned about the size of the images. They work okay on this monitor, but they won't necessarily on a mobile or tablet. Have a look at MOS:IMAGES, specifically the bit that says that images should generally not be more than 220 pixels wide.
Set size is now 220px. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

This dispute between Mackensen and Beyond My Ken is a cause for concern over the "stability" part of the GA criteria, though I don't have a dog in that fight and it all seems to be in the past now.
Yep. It was an edit war over style, but it has been well over a month since the last revert. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

There's quite a lot of work to do here. Of particular concern are the various dead links (mostly to the Friends of the High Line website) - the dead links tool is down at the moment so I can't do an exhaustive check, but you'll probably want to check all the online citations carefully. That said, the issues are not particularly insurmountable, so I'll leave the review on hold awaiting improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I will find Archive URLs if necessary; but these now-dead links did work when I nominated the article for GA status, so I must have overlooked them. Anyway, I have completed all of the requested changes; feel free to point out any more issues.
Thank you for your thorough review. On a unrelated matter, is there anything like this across the pond? I haven't been there for a long time.... – Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing directly comparable - obviously the Royal Parks of London are culturally and historically significant, and there are things like the Meon Valley Trail which are old rural railways converted to cycle paths, but I can't think of any urban railways that have had this treatment. Some people want the Westway to be downgraded to a park and cycle way, but I can't see it happening. Anyway, everything looks to be in order - I'll give it a final check in the morning when I'm not so tired and probably make a decision on passing then. Would be nice for BMK to poke his head in as he's been a major contributor to the article in the past. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I can see why people don't want to downgrade the Westway. Congestion, huh? Or do people have other means of transport?

Anyway, BMK hasn't been very active for a month. I'll leave a message for him. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the new "View of the High Line" section. As previously noted, just having images in and of themselves isn't particularly useful - they need to be able to relate some way to the prose and enhance the readers' understanding of the subject. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have removed the gallery. Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about the delay (been offline generally), but I think was the last remaining concern, so I can now pass the review. I knew I was going to be away, I just didn't expect the actions to be completed so quickly. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your great review. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]