This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
A fact from Central Park Conservancy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 August 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that a $100-million donation to the Central Park Conservancy in 2012 was the largest ever to New York City's park system at the time?
I have just modified one external link on
Central Park Conservancy. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
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
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 05:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)reply
ALT1:... that a $100-million donation to the Central Park Conservancy in 2012 was the largest ever to New York City's park system at the time? Source:
NY Times
Article mentions a large number of living people, but I don't see any
WP:BLP issues.
Earwig
calls out a number of issues. Some of them are bloggy-looking things that may well have copied from us. One of the callouts is the NY Times, who certainly didn't copy from us; in that case, it's mostly just a few quotes, which deserve better attribution. There's also some from The Post, which I'm going to be generous and classify as a newspaper rather than a bloggy-looking thing, and we've got some direct copies from there. These should all be investigated deeper.
The hooks are correctly formatted, interesting, accurate, cited, and neutral.
There's no image associated with this entry.
I'll leave the hook and image reviews to somebody else.
Could another person look at the hook and image reviews? Thanks.
epicgenius (
talk) 14:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Also, thanks
RoySmith for doing the first part of the review. I will fix the copyvio concerns, but it looks like the biggest violations are from forums that seem to have reverse copied from the Wikipedia page.
epicgenius (
talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I've got more time now, so I've done the remaining items (added to the list above). --
RoySmith(talk) 13:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
RoySmith: Thanks. I put the appropriate attribution to the quotes where possible. In the case of the YouTube/blog links, I think they copied from us, rather than the other way around.
epicgenius (
talk) 00:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I've improved the attribution of the NY Times quote. Looks good to go now. --
RoySmith(talk) 14:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: