Jump to content

Talk:Central Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCentral Park has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 17, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
September 5, 2019Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 25, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the 1860s, the land for New York City's Central Park (pictured) was purchased for a higher price than was paid for Alaska?
Current status: Good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 9 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Walter Segovia, Ashley.hodde37.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nhuang97, Ishrat Sultana. Peer reviewers: Jennychen717, Ishrat Sultana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna

[edit]

I think the main species the park is known for is missing. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Park/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
  • There is a reference section. SilkTork (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is stable, and doesn't suffer much vandalism for such a high profile and well read article. SilkTork (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is workable- it is clear and informative. I will fix any errors as I come upon them rather than bring such minor matters here. My only qualm (so far!) is the location information at the start of the lead. I can see that Britannica does the same thing, but per MOS:INTRO (and this applies to the MOS compliance section 1B), the lead should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and "Editors should avoid ... overly specific descriptions". Such specific detail as " It is located between the Upper West Side and Upper East Side, roughly bounded by Fifth Avenue on the east, Central Park West (Eighth Avenue) on the west, Central Park South (59th Street) on the south, and Central Park North (110th Street) on the north." is a little weighty for a second sentence and also, ironically, provides little helpful information for the millions of people (such as myself) who don't know where those streets are. And oddly, when we get into the main body the location description is actually less detailed: "Central Park is bordered on the north by Central Park North (110th Street), on the south by Central Park South (59th Street), on the west by Central Park West (Eighth Avenue), and on the east by Fifth Avenue." How about using the information from the lead in the main body, and briefly adjusting the lead - perhaps "Central Park is an urban park in New York City, located in the heart of Manhattan. Central Park is the most visited... "? SilkTork (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, the lead may have too much information. Some of my other park-related GA's like Prospect Park (Brooklyn) or Van Cortlandt Park don't include the boundaries, but that's because they are too complex. I suppose the neighborhood name may suffice.
  • Article is richly cited, and sources checked are reliable and confirm what is said in the article. If anything, the article is over-cited (Wikipedia:Citation overkill), but that isn't part of GA criteria, and I'm generally OK with having a secondary citation, as not all sources are accessible to everyone. however in some cases, such as "The fish are scattered more widely, but they include several freshwater species,[310][311]" - cite 310 is reliable: [1], but cite 311 is dubious, taking us to a commercial site: [2]. It would be useful as part of ongoing development to check if all the sources are appropriate and needed where there are multiple cites. The centralpark.com cite appears to be there more to promote the site itself, than to reliably support what is in our article. SilkTork (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is written neutrally, with a good balance of information, including, without undue focus, criticisms and concerns such as the carriage horses. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence of original research. Information where checked comes from reliable sources. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attention given to the various aspects of the park appears to be well judged so no aspect appears to be either overly long or short. SilkTork (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major aspects are covered. I'm not seeing anything significant elsewhere that is not already mentioned in the article. SilkTork (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images tidied, and appropriate licensing applied to all images. SilkTork (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Looking again, it's in the Further reading section - "National Register of Historic Inventory". There are eleven Further reading items. It's a matter of editorial judgement as to how many and which items to put in Further reading, though it is advised to keep the list "limited", and to link to "notable" works. While you're looking at the problem with the "National Register of Historic Inventory", could you just check that you really need all of the works listed, per Wikipedia:Further reading. "Parks in Urban America", for example, seems a general work, not one specifically on Central Park and the link for the Wiseman film appears to just go to an advert. I confess, I forgot to check the further reading list when doing the main review! SilkTork (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will review the further reading section when I have time. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the images I listed have a specific problem noted on the image page itself - there will be a red alert triangle, and some text explaining what the issue is. For the first image (and probably most of the others as well), it was that " You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." It's simply finding which US tag is most appropriate and putting that on. SilkTork (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Check done. No concerns raised. SilkTork (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fail

General comments

[edit]
  • A quick look over and this appears to be a decent article. Immediate concerns are the amount of images and some of the short sections and paragraphs, which are MOS issues pertinent to GA criteria, and also give the article an untidy, cluttered look. Also the weight of detail in some sections, which might impact on focus. But the prose seems solid, and the article looks richly sourced. SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think Sports and recreation is the best fit as other public parks are in that category. Odd that we split up parks in this way. But, so be it. SilkTork (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reorganised and renamed the first section Description. I split it into two sections, Geography, which deals with geographic aspects, and Governance, which deals with governance issues, merging the smaller subsections into one or other of these two sections. My original intention was simply to remove the subsection headings per WP:OVERSECTION, but as I worked on it (looking at other GA park articles, such as Hyde Park, London), I saw that the information fell into the two aspects of geography (where it is, how big it is, etc) and governance (who manages it and how), and it was easier just to do the organisation myself than to raise it here and explain it. Any issues with it, please let me know. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with combining all the paragraphs in "Description"/"Geography". The design and size of the park should be one subsection, while the tourists should be another. I originally arranged it so that all three were separate, but after further consideration, the size of the park is related to the geography. Two subsections should be enough, though. epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The older New York Times cites have long titles. Do we need the entire subtitle- for example, instead of "PARK BODIES MERGE IN NEW ASSOCIATION TO SPEED CITY PLANS; Nathan Straus Jr. Heads Union of 3 Societies for Concerted Program of Urban Beauty. URGES PLAYGROUND NEEDS Promises Campaign to Widen and Protect Reservations as Major Civic Need. WOULD ASSIST OFFICIALS But Will Fight Encroachments-- George Gordon Battle to Lead Advisory Committee. Seek to Correlate Efforts. $1,000,000 Won for Central Park. PARK BODIES MERGE IN NEW ASSOCIATION Guard Against Encroachments. Leaders in the Association". Could we just have "PARK BODIES MERGE IN NEW ASSOCIATION TO SPEED CITY PLANS". Or rather, as there is a preference for Title case in titles, rather than using all capitals (Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters), it should be "Park Bodies Merge in New Association to Speed City Plans". This wouldn't come under GA criteria, so this is just something to raise, and wouldn't impact on the review. SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Could you make this sentence a little clearer: "As the city expanded northward up Manhattan Island, people were drawn to the few existing open spaces, mainly cemeteries, to get away from the noise and chaotic life in the city". I couldn't access the source to discover what the intention is. I suspect that it is saying that people wanted open spaces for recreation, but as the statement is foregrounded with the expansion of the city, it could also imply that people wanted open spaces to build residential homes in a quiet area. SilkTork (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

This is very useful overview of an important park. It is informatively and neutrally written and decently organised. It is a little untidy at the moment, mainly due to the use of images. And a number of those images need attention regarding copyright status. I'm not seeing any significant reasons why this should not become a Good Article once tidied up. Putting on hold for an initial seven days to allow time to tidy up the images and other issues raised. Then I'll take a final look at the lead. SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Thanks for the comments. Would you mind looking over the article again? I put appropriate copyright status tags on these. I also cleaned up the Further Reading section and rearranged the images. epicgenius (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at those images and there are still problems with them. I'll look into that for you. SilkTork (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Map of the former Seneca Village (File:Seneca Village-Central Park-Nyc.gif) is cut from a larger image, which doesn't appear to be on Commons, but is downloadable and free to use from New York Public Library: [4]. As that is the original survey done by Veile, do you think it might be useful in the article - especially when compared with the Olmstead Map created twelve years later? Or is that perhaps too geeky for the average reader? Perhaps more suitable for a sub-article: History of Central Park? SilkTork (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the larger image may be useful. However, we should still keep the detail for the Seneca Village image, since it's one of the few images that we have to describe the village in the first place. I don't think that this is really a big deal, though. epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading.
Why do you feel "Schuyler, David. Parks in Urban America. Oxford University Press", a book about Frederick Law Olmsted, should be listed, when the article already has links to the Olmsted article which they can access freely here on Wikipedia rather than have to pay to read on OUP? SilkTork (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you still have this link Wiseman, Frederick (1990). Central Park (motion picture) to an advert for a film about the park? SilkTork (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be easier if I dealt with the further reading section, and the images, and tidy up the article? I'd probably be quicker and less stressful for both of us than me looking and still finding problems and reporting them here when you already feel you've done the right thing. I think what is left is picky minor stuff. SilkTork (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, yes, that would be great if you could clean up the further reading section. I'm not sure which books should be listed and which doesn't. There is a list of resources here, on the Conservancy's website. You can choose whichever entries would be best fit for this article, if any. In fact, maybe we should link this bibliography in the first place.
I have been collecting resources about an article about Central Park's history for some time (the article is at User:Epicgenius/sandbox/draft4). However, it hasn't been fully researched, so i wouldn't split it yet, personally. epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't feel that there is a need at the moment for a split, but it is getting close. See Wikipedia:Splitting. I think I may add details in that information page about splitting based not just on overall size, but also proportional size. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tidied the images by moving them all to the right per layout guidance (either all one side or alternating regularly), and unforced them per image use guidance, and removed a couple of unnecessary images per clutter and relevance guidelines. I've uploaded and replaced the Seneca Village map, resolving problems with that image. I will check remaining images for any licencing issues. SilkTork (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: I appreciate it. A couple of right-aligned images were pretty close to each other, though. I moved these images to the left. I think WP:IMGLOC says the image can be moved to the left if an exception to the general rule is warranted, which in my opinion is the case here. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found the appropriate license for the problematic images: {{PD-old-70-1923}}. SilkTork (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


OK. This looks OK now - listing as GA. I tidied up the gate names footnote. Reduced the space the note was taking, and switched the info so it followed more logically the geographical sequencing (the gates were ordered by location, so switched location to appear first, then the name). Just another minor picky point that would be irritating to do. This is a helpful and informative article on an important park. Good work! SilkTork (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Pond in Central Park
The Pond in Central Park
  • ... that in the 1860s, New York City's Central Park (pictured) was purchased for a higher price than the entire state of Alaska? Source: Kinkead, Eugene (1990). Central Park, 1857-1995: The Birth, Decline, and Renewal of a National Treasure. New York: Norton. ISBN 0-393-02531-4. p. 17
    • ALT1:... that the value of the land in New York City's Central Park (pictured) was estimated to be a half-trillion U.S. dollars in December 2005? Source: NY Magazine
    • ALT2:... that a 2010 census found that 25 people lived in the census tract covering New York City's Central Park (pictured), despite officials' claims that no one lived there? Source: NY Times 2011
    • ALT3:... that New York City's Central Park (pictured) is the most used filming location in the world? Source: The Independent 2017

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • Length and currency: Easily long enough, achieved Good article status today (5 Sept)
  • Sources: Extremely well referenced.
  • CopyVio: I can't find anything out of order, and I assume it has been checked for this as part of the GA review in any case.
  • Image: Properly licenced
  • QPQ: Done
  • Hook: Approving ALT0. It's snappy and surprising. Clearly written in the text. The source, page 17 of Kinead (1990) cannot be read online, so AGF.
  • General: A very thorough article, written in crystal clear English, nicely laid out, very good use of images. Well done! Felixkrater (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, and I don't find ALT0 snappy or surprising at all, considering it happened in the mid-19th century. I would like to promote ALT2, but I would like to use a different thumbnail image, as this one shows too much of the skyscrapers while the pond is in darkness. Pinging nominator Epicgenius. Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Central Park
Central Park
@Yoninah: In my view, ALT0 is much more hooky than ALT2, and I am unclear what you mean in the statement "considering it happened in the mid-19th century". The two events occurred about a dozen years apart and the Alaska purchase was the later of the two, making the statistic more impressive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original name

[edit]

@Ganymede94 and Gerda Arendt: The reason I removed "the Central Park" as a former name is that the definite article is a grammatical part of speech, not part of the title, similar to "the Brooklyn Bridge", "the Statue of Liberty", "the Metropolitan Museum of Art". Even in the case like "the Bronx", we do not mention "Bronx" as an alternate name. Without the definite article, it is the same as the common name "Central Park". In NYC we don't generally refer to parks with the definite articles, except for The Battery.

Also, if we really want to be precise, the original name was not even a proper noun, but two common nouns together, as in a "central park" due to its central location in Manhattan. Therefore, "a central park", "the central park", etc. were acceptable common terms for the park. "Central Park" is capitalized now because that has come to be the official name for Central Park. epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Epicgenius and Gerda Arendt: I still disagree. In its original name, the definite article “the” was a part of its title. Looks up original design plans for the park, they all say “The Central Park” New York—not, “Central Park” New York. It’s similar to the definite article being including in “The New York Times” or “The Wall Street Journal.”
Moreover, your examples are completely different. For those examples, you have to include the definite article, otherwise it wouldn’t sound right. You would say “I’m going to the State of Liberty”, but not, “I’m going to Statue of Liberty”. Thus, for the common usage of the park name you always say, “I’m going to Central Park”. Saying, “I’m going to The Central Park” is different as ‘The’ is part of the title and not simply a grammatical part of speech like the example you gave.
Lastly, the original name was a proper noun. And also, the words ‘central’ and ’park’ are not two nouns together. ‘Central’ is an adjective.
The original title of the park merits inclusion in the article. If not in the intro, then at least in the history section. Ganymede94 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ganymede94, it's okay to include in the history section. I'd recommend against including it in the lead though, especially in the first sentence without greater context. To a reader, saying "The Central Park" is a "former" name would stick out as unusual, especially with no context as to why it was considered a proper name. If we are looking at the same plans, then "the central park" is actually a set of common nouns that are capitalized in news article titles (which tend to capitalize almost every noun, verb, adjective, and adverb). epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center-aligned captions?

[edit]

Why were so many of these image captions changed to be center-aligned? This is not a standard on any article that I know of, and as well it is inconsistently applied. I'd recommend keeping the standard left-alignment here. ɱ (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing map shapes

[edit]

Hi, guys. Because this is the coolest article on Wikipedia, I'm wanting to know how to draw an infobox map shape highlight overlay like this for less-cool park articles. Is there a tutorial, and an app for drawing on a map or for importing an SVG? I understand that {{maplink}} has an "id=" parameter which sources data from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q160409 but I see no coordinates there. I don't want to go offtopic here, but I can't find anyone to ask. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 08:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - generally you can ask questions about maplink (which this article uses) at its talk page. Template talk:maplink redirects to Module talk:Mapframe, where questions are posed about it. As for adding maps of park boundaries, you can follow my tutorial, written for lines instead of shapes, but the principle is still there. If you need any help with it, please don't hesitate to ask. ɱ (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: hi again - you may be interested to know now that I have a tutorial specifically for shapes like this park - view it here - Wikipedia:Creating shape maps from OpenStreetMap data. Cheers -ɱ (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

www.centralparknyc.org sources dead.

[edit]

Many of the www.centralparknyc.org URLs are now dead. I believe the site was restructured recently and the info has new pages. I do not plan to track them down. (I found the dead URLs.) Luckily an archived page had been added to most of the cites. I simple had to change the URL status to dead. User-duck (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlight codes

[edit]

Each streetlight in the Park has a four-digit code at the base. This not only identifies the light, but if read properly, will tell you which street you are nearest, and whether you are on the east or west side of the Park. Could we have some info on the origin of this? 2601:647:5800:9120:603B:788:9186:4467 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Most filmed location in the world" in first paragraph of lede

[edit]

This is sourced to one unscientific analysis of imdb. While it may be true, does it belong in the first paragraph? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 15:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a source anymore so this claim should probably be deleted right? Ericfood (talk | contribs) 17:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! Such a big claim would need a pretty clear source. NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still no source, I'm deleting the sentence. Ericfood (talk | contribs) 20:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Park&oldid=1193680367"