Talk:New York City/GA2

GA Reassessment

Delisted Nothing substantial has occured at the article for over a month now. AIRcorn (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I first came upon this article when it was nominated for Good article status about a year ago. I raised some concerns on the talk page regarding the neutrality, particularly in the lead. The article was then withdrawn, but it was later submitted to peer review. Myself and another editor left some feedback and raised concerns over the neutrality. To my mind the biggest problem is the lead. It reads like a list of achievements and records more than a summary of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the lead there are issues with referencing. Just some examples from the history section.

New York grew in importance as a trading port while under British rule. It became a center of slavery, with 42% of households holding slaves by 1730, more than any other city other than Charleston, South Carolina
Slavery became integrally tied to New York's economy through the labor of slaves throughout the port, and the banks and shipping tied to the South.- this sentence is also hard to parse.
The Battle of Long Island, the largest battle of the American Revolutionary War, was fought in August 1776 entirely within the modern day borough of Brooklyn.
The city was a haven for Loyalist refugees, as well as escaped slaves who joined the British lines for the freedom promised by the Crown.
By 1790, New York had surpassed Philadelphia as the largest city in the United States.
Several prominent American literary figures lived in New York during the 1830s and 1840s, including William Cullen Bryant, Washington Irving, Herman Melville, Rufus Wilmot Griswold, John Keese, Nathaniel Parker Willis, and Edgar Allan Poe.
Public-minded members of the old merchant elite lobbied for the establishment of Central Park, which in 1857 became the first landscaped park in an American city.
The opening of the subway in 1904, first built as separate private systems, helped bind the new city together.
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, the city became a world center for industry, commerce, and communication.

Some of these could possible be argued as not needing a citation, but many of them make claims that need backing up. AIRcorn (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues with original research similar to ones that were present earlier.

with a population significantly greater than the combined totals of Los Angeles and Chicago - Not only is doing this original research, but you can't compare populations from different sources and from different years. It is original research because we are deciding what cities to compare, if something like this is to be included then it should come from a secondary source. Not to mention significantly has a very important meaning, which is not based on just looking at two numbers. AIRcorn (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues as well.

Hurricanes and tropical storms are rare in the New York area, but are not unheard of and always have the potential to strike the area. - redundancies
This amounts to about 40% of the state of New York's population and a similar percentage of the metropolitan regional population. - How does this tie in to the paragraph. No real context is given.
Two demographic points are New York City's density and ethnic diversity. - Points??
Geographically co-extensive with New York County, conversely, the borough of Manhattan's population density of 66,940 people per square mile[149] (25,846/km²) makes it the highest of any county in the United States and higher than the density of any individual American city. - converse to what?
The metropolitan area is also home to 20% of the nation's Indian Americans and at least 20 Little India enclaves, as well as 15% of all Korean Americans and four Koreatowns; the largest Asian Indian population in the Western Hemisphere; the largest Russian American,[153] Italian American, and African American populations; the largest South American and second-largest overall Hispanic communities in the United States; and includes 6 Chinatowns in New York City alone (7 including the emerging Chinese enclave in Corona, Queens), as well as one each in Edison, New Jersey and Nassau County, Long Island, with the urban agglomeration comprising as of the 2010 Census a population of 682,265 overseas Chinese, the largest outside of Asia. - This is far too long and confusing. Others are similar, but this was the worst.

Other

and in February 2013, Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich docked his $1.5 billion yacht, the world's largest, in Manhattan. - Why is this important?
Manhattan is also experiencing a baby boom that is unique among American cities. - Why is it unique, needs more information.
New York City has ranked along with Moscow as home to the highest number of billionaires - This typifies the problem with the presentation of facts here. The most recent article says Moscow has the highest number of billionaires. Instead of using that we have added an article 3 years earlier that uses New York. Instead of saying that in 2009 New York had the most billionaires, or even better mentioning the current ranking, it instead obfuscates the facts. I find this happens far too often, the article promotes New York as having the best/biggest/fastest etc and then alters the facts to make it fit (either by limiting it to an arbitrary geographical or temporal local). It is great to be proud of your city, but we need to present information impartially, and I don't think this comes close at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a frivolous reassessment, but go ahead. For example, neither the population of Los Angeles nor that of Chicago has changed anywhere significantly enough between 2010 and 2012 (Los Angeles around 3.85 million and Chicago around 2.7 million) to compare with New York City's 8.3 million in 2012. I believe that given the magnitude and complexity of both this article and its subject, this is an excellent article which continues to get only better. There must be a reason it achieved "Good Article" status recently in the first place, right? At the end of the day, however, I really don't care - these ceremonial assessments are just that. I actually care more about educating the reader and have nothing more to say about this.

Castncoot (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. My experience of your editing on this article is that it is more harmful than good. You included a gaming forum as a reliable source on New Yorks Cultural status,[1] even reinserting it after it was removed[2], and defended[3] the use of personal (and highly flawed) google search engine results to justify it as having a high internet presence.[4] I notified you because you are a major editor in this area and that is required as part of the process, but I am hoping there are a few other editors interested in making a decent article out of this. I have provided some detailed feedback and am willing to work with anyone that actually wants this to be a good article. From your answer above I don't think you understand the concept of original research, and this is far from an excellent article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aircorn, I actually think this is a great idea. I've considered requesting a WP:PR earlier, and appreciate the work you've already put into highlighting the page's issues. I've noticed the glaring lack of references for some paragraphs, especially those with statistics listed. What's the timeframe here? I was thinking that I'll have more time over the next week and that weekend to look into this.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Patrick. There is no hard and fast time frame and with an article like this I think no would would complain if we took our time to make sure it was right. Saying that I don't want to keep these things going forever. If someone is actively addressing the issues I will probably keep it open (lets say as a guideline a fortnight of inactivity might run the risk of it being close). Either way as long as we communicate where we are at and are reasonable I don't think we will have any issues

Do you have any experience with the good article process? As far as this reassessment goes I will try and concentrate on the criteria listed here, but may make other suggestions outside it. I should note that I only left a superficial review as I wanted to test the waters first and see if anyone was interested before getting too in-depth so there may be a lot more work than suggested above.

Just respond to each point as I make it, you don't need to agree with them and I am willing to discuss or compromise on most. If you want to start I suggest working on the lead first as that stand out as the most problematic issue (an easy one to solve, but from previous experience one that might meet some resistance). You can find the issues I had with the lead here and most are still present. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do have plenty of experience with the GA/FA process, both reviewing article and making changes based on a review. I think there's enough here to start with before going more in depth. My first concern is referencing, so I do appreciate the highlighting of places that are unsourced.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Look forward to working with you (and anyone else that wants to help). AIRcorn (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks and no discernible action taken on the article. Will look to close this in a week if nothing is forthcoming. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

I mentioned this above in the Peer review, but I find it unlikely that "Gotham", "The Center of the Universe", "The Capital of the World", and "Metropolis" are real nicknames. Just because an article (mostly promotional ones from the links) describes a city as the capital of the world does not make it that cities nickname. If I say I am going to The Big Apple for a holiday then most people would know what I am saying. If I say I am going to the center of the universe, they would probably think I had lost my marbles. I think these ones need stronger evidence that they are well-known nicknames. AIRcorn (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these issues could be easily addressed and fixed, and unsourced paragraphs could be hidden until sufficient references are found for them. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that these are easily fixed, or else I would have done so myself. I think the problem is endemic, but it is surmountable if one or two editors are dedicated enough. Note I have only presented issues from the first few sections too. AIRcorn (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]