Talk:Prospect Park (Brooklyn)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this one as well, will post a review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Initial review
Lead
[edit]- Link New York City parks to New York City Department of Parks and Recreation here at the first mention rather than the final paragraph.
- @Kosack: Done. epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Could probably do with linking Pétanque in New York Pétanque Club as I immediately had to search for that to find out what it is.
- Done.
- "Prospect Park is run and operated by the Prospect Park Alliance", maybe start this sentence with simply "The park". Otherwise we have Prospect Park used three times in two sentences which is a bit repetitive.
- Fixed.
Before the park
[edit]- (1775-1783), use an WP:ENDASH for date ranges.
- Done.
Planning
[edit]- "The revised plan called for purchase of additional", should this be for the purchase...?
- Yes, fixed.
Construction
[edit]- "between 250 and 2,000 workers were hired", small prose suggestion. Employed instead of hired perhaps? Hired makes it sound like they were hiring and firing rather than the likelihood of it being contractual work?
- Done.
Late 19th century
[edit]- "Long Meadow to pay croquet on weekend afternoons", should that be play croquet?
- Fixed.
- "which had was excluded from the final plans of the park", wording is a little off here.
- Yeah, there was a word interchanged, fixed.
Robert Moses era
[edit]- Fiorello La Guardia is linked in the previous paragraph so repeating the link here is a bit excessive, per WP:OVERLINK.
- Fixed.
Late 20th century
[edit]- "Brooklyn's 300th anniversary, and the park's hundredth anniversary", seems a bit odd to switch between numerical and worded numbers in the same sentence. This probably falls foul of MOS:NUMNOTES.
- Fixed.
- "The Rose Garden and the Vale of Cashmere had also been re-landscaped,[83] Also part of the renovation was a restoration of the Prospect Park Carousel" I'm guessing the also after ref 83 is a sentence break, but it's preceded by a comma?
- Yes, I used a comma by accident. epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Early 21st century
[edit]- "The Alliance also intended to restore the water-damaged Oriental Pavilion for $2 million and replacing fencing on Flatbush Avenue", should this be replace fencing?
- Fixed.
Wildlife
[edit]- "and during winters, birdwatchers reported seeing 60 unique species at the park on a good day", perhaps birdwatchers have reported...? In its current form, it sounds like this is a definite thing every winter.
- Done.
Arches
[edit]- "interior and exterior designs were elaborately designed, though these designs", slightly repetitive use of designs/designed here.
- Fixed.
Monuments and statues
[edit]- "as of 2014, it has not been moved", that's a five year gap now. Can this be updated, to 2016 at least? Is it still there?
- Fixed. I couldn't find any newer sources, but NYC Parks' page as of now still says that the Lincoln statue is still there. In fact, I went there today and confirmed that it is still there. epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Can't get clearer than that I suppose! Kosack (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed. I couldn't find any newer sources, but NYC Parks' page as of now still says that the Lincoln statue is still there. In fact, I went there today and confirmed that it is still there. epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Crimes
[edit]- "in a wooded area of the Vale of Kashmir", the area uses Cashmere throughout the article. Is there a reason for the sudden change?
- Fixed, that was a typo.
References
[edit]- A few refs have shouting in their titles which is to be avoided, per WP:ALLCAPS.
- Fixed.
Another great article. This is pretty much ready for promotion either way but there a are a few issues above to be looked at. Placed in hold for now. Kosack (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Kosack: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all the issues above. epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Happy to promote, another great article. More than satisfies the GA criteria. Promoting. Kosack (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)