Talk:The Ramble and Lake/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: hi! Just got through with my first runthrough of the GAN review. Very good article overall. A few things to be fixed, and then we're all set! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The lead para about the Ramble doesn't actually mention what it *is* now, which is a small forest with lots of paths. To those without a preconceived notion, I think the paragraph wouldn't leave them much clearer about what it is today - a lot of this hangs on the phrase "was intended", which implies an outcome other than what was intended. Rephrase would be good here. What is meant by "Its ground" in the third lead para, about the Lake - a particular section of shoreline? The Geography/Ramble section is much clearer about what the Ramble is - use as inspiration for rephrase of lead. In Notable features / Ladies Pavilion, the last two sentences raise a question - if a "full renovation" was too expensive at 95,000, how could it then be "completely restored" with a $7,000 grant? Not a big deal, but it's odd and logically inconsistent. Other than ^^ above not much stands out - it's a very well-written article! No real copyediting issues. Issues fixed. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good - almost every sentence cited. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	My only concern here is how many of the sources are from the Central Park Conservancy - I understand why, but it would be good to have a good source for the basic facts more independent from the group that runs Central Park. If this isn't available though, it shouldn't be enough to keep it from passing. Sufficient justification provided. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nicely balanced article. Pass. Maybe a sentence or two more on the tree-cutting and restoration controversy in the early '80s, which judging by the NYtimes archive seems to have been quite a big deal at the time. Here's one good source.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good balance, as mentioned above. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No issues. Most work done April/May 2019.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass!

@Ganesha811: Thanks for the review. Here are my replies:

• The lead para about the Ramble doesn't actually mention what it *is* now - I clarified with additional detail, and fixed the tense.
• What is meant by "Its ground" in the third lead para - yes, it was a shoreline, this is fixed now.
• In Notable features / Ladies Pavilion, the last two sentences raise a question - I left out the $150,000 anonymous donation by accident.
• Maybe a sentence or two more on the tree-cutting and restoration controversy in the early '80s - this was already mentioned, though in not-so-clear terms. I fixed it.
• My only concern here is how many of the sources are from the Central Park Conservancy - as of now, there are only 13 out of 91 sources that are from the Conservancy. Almost all of these sources are backed up by secondary sources as well, though some of these sources appear later in the sentence or in the paragraph. epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Epicgenius, thank you for doing all this. Those fixes look great! I'll do a quick double check of everything and then wrap up my review. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)