Pelham Bay 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 2, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that with an area of 2,772 acres (1,122 ha),
Pelham Bay Park is the largest public park in
New York City? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Glover's Rock page were merged into Pelham Bay Park. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Pelham Bay page were merged into Pelham Bay Park. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Split Rock (Bronx, New York) page were merged into Pelham Bay Park. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the The Bronx Victory Column & Memorial Grove page were merged into Pelham Bay Park. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Treaty Oak (New York City) page were merged into Pelham Bay Park. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Twin Island, New York page were merged into Pelham Bay Park. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Material from Pelham Bay Park was split to Hunter Island (Bronx) on June 7, 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Material from Pelham Bay Park was split to Orchard Beach (Bronx) on June 6, 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Barkeep49 ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@ 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)
stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detailas 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)
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)
I will give other thoughts about the lead following changes above and my having completed the detailed read
The Dutch West India Company purchased the land in 1639.Given the information in the subsequent section should this paragraph be included at all?
There were objections to the system, which would apparently be too far from Manhattan, in addition to precluding development on these sites
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.
multiple estates spread out over an excess of 1,700 acres?
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
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)
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)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Split Rock, which is here:
40°53′11.32″N 73°48′53.7″W / 40.8864778°N 73.814917°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)
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)