Talk:Pelham Bay Park

Untitled

Pelham Bay Park can be used for ballfields, parking lots, dog run, bbq/picnic area, nature center, playgrounds, rest rooms, and tennis courts. It was founded in 1888.''''Bold text'

NEEDS A MAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.161.28 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pelham Bay Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150508083348/http://www.pelhambaypark.org/category/places-to-visit to http://www.pelhambaypark.org/category/places-to-visit/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040808214334/http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/vt_pelham_bay_park/vt_pelham_bay_park.html to http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/vt_pelham_bay_park/vt_pelham_bay_park.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pelham Bay Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Article Issues

@Epicgenius: So I have now read through the article once and have completed my detailed read through Creation. At over 66kb of readable text (that is over 11,000 words) this is an absolutely massive article. I think in most places it can be justified based on what is covered and credit to you for the work necessary to write such an article. However, I don't think that the History section (as well as a couple others) can be justified in the depth that they're at now (GA criteria 3b). I would suggest that History of Pelham Bay Park could split-off into its own article and a much shorter version maintained here. Additionally, the lead needs a rewrite, as noted below (GA criteria 1b). If I were reviewing this article a couple weeks after nomination, I would quickfail it given major issues with these two GA criteria. However, given that it sat in the queue for almost 8 months that long I don't think that is fair. Instead I'll ask how you would like to proceed. I'm happy to continue my review if you have the time soon to make these large changes, put it on hold for a couple weeks so you can make these, or to give a shorter go at evaluating the GA criteria and failing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for the initial comments. I have rewritten the lead to that extent, but I'm not sure how the majority of the article is not focused. I will say that the length of this article is on par with the length of other good articles that go into this level of detail, e.g. Rockefeller Center. I do agree with the possible splitting off of some articles, like Orchard Beach, but I don't have time to do so at the moment. epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looks like I do have some time. Just give me a few weeks and I'll take care of the bloated text. epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Sounds good. I'm going to put this review on hold to give you a couple weeks to work on. Feel free to ping me when you feel like it's worth me coming back around to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I trimmed the article by 9% just by splitting off the Orchard Beach (Bronx) article. I will try to trim other sections as well over the next few days. epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think I have finished trimming unnecessary details of this article. It is now 9,000 words, still pretty large, but that's probably a proportional size for New York City's largest park. Its size is proportional to other articles about large NYC parks that are smaller than Pelham Bay Park, like Van Cortlandt Park, Central Park, and Flushing Meadows–Corona Park. I'm not keen on making standalone "history" articles since it simply relegates the information to a page that few people are likely to ever click on. Instead, I split off articles on some of the individual features, and removed irrelevant details like road exit numbers. epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for your hard (and fast!) work. I do applaud your splitting off Orchard Beach into an article that can already reasonably be nominated for GA. I perhaps did not emphasize this enough, but my thinking is like you that there's nothing inherently wrong with this being a long article. Before your work I did feel that the history section itself went into too much detail and was contributing to an overall article that was too long. As you point out this is still an active park (the largest in NYC) and so the extraordinary detail in the history section while of interest to a history buff like me, was too prominent in the article (and the LEAD) and thus an issue for GA criterias 1b & 3b. I will, no later than this weekend, look at the revisions and comment further. Thanks again for your efforts here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'll look around and see what else I can trim, if anything. As I said above, this is NYC's largest park so there are a lot of things going on here. epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: My general philosophy in GA reviews is that I can give my thoughts on individual parts of an article in a collaborative effort to improve it, but my preferences matter less than that of the article's editor(s) and so I will give my thinking but when in conflict will usually end up deferring. However, since the GA criteria itself is what this is about, I cannot bend on my interpretation of whether an articles meets that or not. I stepped away for a couple days from this so I could re-evaluate with some fresh eyes. Even after that time away, I feel that the article is substantially out-of-line with GA criterias 1b & 3b. I think through the normal GA review process that 1b could be remedied. However, in a roughly 10,000 word article about a modern park (which I need to stress is not the problem) having 6,000 of those words be about the history means the article does not stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail as the WP:GACR specifies. If your opinion is that all of this is necessary, that is fair enough, and so I think the correct course is for me to fail the review and for you to immediately renominate it as is your right so you could get a different reviewer. That outcome would be disappointing, given what I see as mutually good faith efforts in this process and the length of time you waited for a review, but also the best resolution for this disagreement I can see. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think there is a third solution: we can ask for a third opinion. I've seen it occur with some GA reviews so maybe we can try that. The other articles about large NYC parks also place emphasis on the history sections as well, since there's only so much you can add regarding the physical features of a park. The other issue is that if I delete too much of the history section, this would fail criterion 3a. I'm not sure how this article does not meet criterion 1b, since I already fixed the lead issue. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I didn't come to the conclusion that the history has 6,000 words. I just checked the length and the history section as of now has 17530 characters (2962 words) "readable prose size" according to WP:DYKcheck. By comparison the entire article is 53211 characters (8946 words) "readable prose size". This comes out to 33%, which I would think is well balanced for the good article criteria. I apologize for the tone of my response, as I'm not sure what to do next. epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I understand your frustration, so no offense is taken and I hope none is given. The GA process is designed to be "lightweight" and basically one that one editor and one reviewer can complete. My evaluation of the article is it doesn't meet the standards and you (not unfairly) don't think my evaluation of why is correct. There is an option for me to call for a second opinion (something I did on a different recent review) but in this circumstance I think you're better off with a fresh reviewer. That fresh reviewer will in effect be the 3PO and even better have the ability to complete the rest of the review, hopefully favorably. I am going ahead and failing the review. I encourage you to relist it right away. If/when you do I will see what I can do to help you get a reviewer quickly. You've done some great work with this article and I'm sorry I'm not in a position to be the one to pass it to GA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Specific Feedback

Lead

• The lead currently only summarizes History and a small portion of Geography. There's a lot of other stuff in this article. Please take a look at MOS:LEADREL and revise.

I will give other thoughts about the lead following changes above and my having completed the detailed read

History

• The Dutch West India Company purchased the land in 1639. Given the information in the subsequent section should this paragraph be included at all?
  • Well, the names were mentioned in this source about Pelham Bay Park. And the Dutch West India Company did purchase most of this part of the Bronx. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Suggest renaming the sections to reflect the times covered (e.g. Pre-1600s) rather than summary names which, as titled, are not accurate
  •  Done
• Can you clarify There were objections to the system, which would apparently be too far from Manhattan, in addition to precluding development on these sites
  •  Done
• The third paragraph of Creation seems to stray far afield from Pelham.
  • This is in the article for context. Pelham Bay Park was only created in the first place because it would be part of the Bronx's greenbelt. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Split off to a new article, New Parks Act. epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Do the sources say what gave the park momentum to pass despite "the objections of major figures..."?
  • I mentioned the supporter's arguments in the previous segments. "Supporters argued that the parks were for the benefit of all the city's citizens, thus justifying the citywide park tax; that the value of properties near the parks would appreciate greatly over time; that the Commission had only chosen property that could easily be converted into a park; and that Pelham Bay Park would soon be annexed to the city." Sourced to the same reference.epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any mention in what I believe is the sourcing for After being sued many times, the city acquiesced to buying the land for the park. It's possible I am looking at the wrong source, however.
  • Changed to "After much litigation, the city acquired the land for the park", which is mentioned in the source.. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Is there a reason to mention specific families for multiple estates spread out over an excess of 1,700 acres?
  • These were notable rich families at the time. These manors were named after the families who inhabited them. For instance, the Hunter's mansion. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Several of the references are hyperlinked back to this article (and/or to edit the article). I don't think this was intentional (am guessing it was meant to link to the correct place in the sources section).
  • Which sources are you talking about? I used {{sfn}} for some citations, which provides a link to the Sources section. At least that's how it's supposed to function, anyway. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Split Rock Location

Split Rock is currently showing a location of : 40° 53′ 11.32″ N, 73° 49′ 1.63″ W

However, both the article description and other sources, suggest it is actually here : 40° 53' 11.32" N, 73° 48' 53.70" W

This is not a big distance, but puts it on the wrong side of both highways. Vollink (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Can epicgenius or other interested editor confirm that they would like to go through the GA process for this article? My normal process is to do an initial read (not yet done), followed by a detailed read where I give suggestions as I go, and to work together from there to see if this is or can meet GA standards. Given the size of this article, once an editor confirms interest it will likely take me a couple days to go through my detailed read. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I'm still interested in a review. Thanks for taking this up. epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Great. I will begin this in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pelham Bay Park/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EggRoll97 (talk · contribs) 03:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Beginning Notes

To anyone watching this review, hello! I have noticed that the article has been denied once before, so the issues in the previous review are the ones that I'll mostly be looking at to see if they're resolved. I've marked some aspects of the criteria as being fine already, since there's some things that I can immediately determine from a quick look, and then the rest may take a while. Please put any discussion you might have here, I won't bite! Side Note: I've also checked a few of the things that take longer than a quick look. This article doesn't seem to have any major issues, I'll likely end up only needing to harshly review the parts that were failed in the first review. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Some Concerns

I have a concern about the article (the criteria that doesn't pass yet). For references, there's 3 references which spot my immediate attention, an example is found here. I did try to fix these minor errors, but I don't know enough about the syntax to fix them. If you or anyone else can, please fix them, or remove them as dead links.

I'll put the article on-hold for 7 days, when the issues are fixed, please reply below this comment, thanks! EggRoll97 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: Thanks for doing the review. I have fixed all the references that were either dead links or not defined at all. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: No problem. That fixes all the concerns I had about the article, I'll be marking it as passed right now. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Split Rock, which is here:

40°53′11.32″N 73°48′53.7″W

This matches up on all mapping services I can find to fit the article's description of where this feature actually is (and this PDF). The current location in the article is showing "73° 49′ 1.63″ W", which puts it on the wrong side of both highways.

THAT SAID, this isn't a big difference, and the coordinate I'm giving is correct on the map services, but maybe wouldn't match a GPS? I only live four miles from here, but most of getting to this location to check in-person is a lot of walking. In any case, it seems better to have this look right on the map view, than to have it be right on a GPS. Anyway, I'm not a super experienced editor, and I don't want to just assume my correction is the right thing to do because it feels right to me.

—Vollink (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the error; no need to be diffident about it. Deor (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Tallapoosa Point

To my knowledge, Tallapoosa Point was used for dumping well into the late seventies. I know it for a fact. Parks Department was using it to dump Orchard Beach trash there at least as late as ’78 or ’79. It was in full operation until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)