Talk:Central Troy Historic District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCentral Troy Historic District has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 7, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 4, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that five historic districts in downtown Troy, New York were merged in 1986 to create the Central Troy Historic District?
Current status: Good article

Map suggestion[edit]

Would it be unreasonable to add the limits of the original four districts on the map? Circeus (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I'd have to see if the applications include boundaries (sometimes they're just defined as X street, sometimes they get all irregular like this one does). Daniel Case (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for GA reviewer[edit]

Unlike other GAs I've developed and nominated, there isn't much I feel I have to explain or defend with this one. I have implemented all the suggestions made in peer review, save Camelbinky's request for more direct sourcing on the early 1970s (because he's in a better position to get that than me). It's as comprehensive as I'd imagined it being, and more. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a quick copy-edit, and things look good. I have a couple questions though:
  1. When it says the Washington Park "maintenance costs included in their deeds", what is meant by that? A family member of mine lived on Washington Park for much of her life, and I asked her how that worked (thinking of this article); she told me there were monthly payments made for upkeep. The current wording makes me think that the charges are paid when a townhouse is sold or resold (i.e. one-time payment).
  2. Would it be worth mentioning that Troy got some stimulus dollars, which are now being used to spruce up the intersections in the district? The crosswalks are being paved with red asphalt and stamped to look like bricks. The old (puke) green traffic light posts (bleh) are being replaced by black poles that overhang the roads, and look more Victorian. These updates (while practically unnecessary) are meant to make the area look more quaint. The work is currently ongoing.
    • If you get a source for this, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems to be the best option. Skip to the second paragraph regarding the NYSDOT ITS improvements (the definition of which can be found here). Seems it was mainly planned without stimulus dollars, but has since been expanded a bit thanks to the additional money. Opinionatedly, I hate those pink crosswalks. Either put in bricks, or leave them unpainted and unstamped. They lose their color in less than a year, making them a huge waste of money. Because I have such an opinion on that, I'll call that my 5¢. wadester16 21:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Can you reword the first sentence of "Central Troy today"? It reads: "the Riverfront,(1) First,(2) Second,(3) Third and Fourth Street(4) and Fifth Avenue(5) local historic districts", which I read as being 5 districts the way it's written, but you indicated six (an Oxford comma may be helpful in this instance, or even semicolons).
    •  Done Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still only seeing five: "the Riverfront, First, Second, Third, and (Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue)". I added the parens. With the two "ands" I still only read five, but you indicate six. May you mean " the Riverfront, First, Second, Third, Fourth Street, and Fifth Avenue"? wadester16 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, it looks really good. wadester16 04:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Troy Historic District/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article for GA and find that it an interesting and informative article that generally fulfills the requirements. I have two concerns.

  • The prose in "Postwar prosperity". Too many short, stubby paragraphs.
 Done I combined several of them. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LAYOUT, I think there are too many images and they overwhelm the article. In fact, they overwhelm themselves, as it becomes difficult to focus on them, there are so many. You could either cull the selections for the most interesting/informative. Or use a gallery. Also, their placement is problematic and somehow not attractive.

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images illustrate adjacent text in which the buildings in question are mentioned. I don't like using galleries because images in an article should either illustrate the article or not be in it at all. Images help break up text flow so you can keep reading. I don't think this is out of line with "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon further reflection, I hadn't originally intended for there to be so many images at the end. Perhaps for the time being, I can take them out (save the guy at the street festival). Maybe a good long-term compromise with your gallery suggestion would be to tableize the "Significant contributing properties" section, using the color schemes we use in all our NRHP list articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I took out some of the images near the end of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better. Very nice visually. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Neutral
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass
  • I can see that an extraordinary amount of work has gone into this in depth treatment of this historical district in Troy. Quite beyond a GA. Congradulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tips[edit]

Especially if you are considering FAC, be careful of overlinking. I meant to direct you to Overlinking and underlinking. Also, they will require alt text for images. And they will demand consistency in reference format. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but I believe the zoning link you removed fits under the exception for "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." (i.e., the first is in the intro, the second is near the end of the article). I don't have a problem with alt-text, especially as it relates to accessibility ... I can easily put that in later. But which refs aren't consistently formatted? The ones that use {{PDFlink}}? Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed one that was partly a raw link by sticking it in a cite web format, as I noticed you did use cite web, and used your accessdate. Reference 68, I believe. But I did not thoroughly check, so I just wanted to warn you that at FAC they check for consistency of format, as well as publishers, accessdates etc. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was one someone else had added since my full copyedit in May, I think. As for consistency, I did have that in mind when I edited. I do keep abreast of what they tend to require at FAC nowadays, even if I don't participate in discussions there much at the moment. But in any event thanks for the heads-up. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Central Troy Historic District/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The history section is getting pretty long, so maybe break it up into sub-sections? Looks good otherwise. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Central Troy Historic District. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Summary of city plans" is inaccessible[edit]

Section Depression and decline has a reference named "Summary of city plans" whose URL is dead, and in fact the whole site, http://www.docstoc.com, has been dead since 1 December 2016.[1]

Internet Archive has a copy dated 2011.07.16, but it's just a download page, and the document is inaccessible through it.

References

  1. ^ "Docstoc is Closed". Archived from the original on 25 January 2016. Retrieved 25 March 2017. As of December 1st, Docstoc is closed for business.

--Thnidu (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Perhaps the city has moved those plans somewhere else. I'll have to search. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Central Troy Historic District. 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).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Troy_Historic_District&oldid=1206595932"