Talk:Bergen Beach, Brooklyn

Identifying boundaries for Bergen Beach, Brooklyn, NY

have noted area which does not appear to be part of the neighborhoods of canarsie or mill basin or flatlands. epodunk has a description but is not explicitly written. and unfortunately i am not specifically familiar with this neighborhood. if you are, then feel free to go ahead and put this up. also, the name of the western waterway boundary (traveling north in the description below) -is that West Mill Basin? below is my attempt to define the boundaries:

Boundaries of Bergen Beach, Brooklyn, NY Bergen Beach has an irregular shaped boundary. Starting at its northernmost point at the intersection of Ralph Ave and Flatlands Ave, its boundary leads southeast along East Mill Basin (parallel to Bergen Ave), then west along Avenue Y (its southernmost border), turning north along another (name unknown) Basin and continuing north along East 68th Street, turning west along Veterans Ave continuing into Avenue N, and finally north along Ralph Avenue back to the starting point.

John boundary (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[ I have consulted a Hagstrom map: East Mill Basin is the west, not east boundary. Paerdegat Basin is the name of the waterway east of Bergen Beach, running roughly parallel to Bergen Ave. However, according to the map, the boundaries described below include Georgetown as well. ]

Just east of the neighborhoods of Flatlands and Mill Basin, Bergen Beach has an irregular shaped boundary (at least one source indicates the northernmost section within these boundaries is the neighborhood of Georgetown). Starting at its northernmost point at the intersection of Ralph Ave and Flatlands Ave, its boundary leads southeast along Paerdegat Basin (roughly parallel to Bergen Ave), then west along Avenue Y (its southernmost border), turning north along East Mill Basin and continuing north along East 68th Street, turning west along Veterans Ave continuing into Avenue N, and finally north along Ralph Avenue back to the starting point.

4.156.18.225 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bergen Beach, Brooklyn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• " the New York City borough of Brooklyn" a bit of a sea of blue happening here, particularly as the piped link (which goes to a redirect, incidentally) for "borough" is really for "New York City boroughs".
  • @The Rambling Man: I've fixed this. I am fixing this article along with the Mill Basin, Brooklyn article, which is also undergoing GA review. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Any reason only one fact in the lead necessitates an inline citation? Everything in the lead should be in the article, and expanded, and thus can be referenced there, leaving the lead cite-free and nice and tidy.
  • Moved below.
• As a clueless reviewer, I don't know what "uplands" are.
  • Fixed.
• "shell middens" and "univalves" are piped to redirects.
  • Fixed.
• "late 1890s.[5]:77 It was" merge, the two very short sentences are jarring.
  • Merged the sentences.
• "However, some sources give the filling-in date as 1911.[7] " this would probably be better suited as a footnote.
  • I combined this with the previous sentence. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• " landfill to fill in the marshland.[6] However, some sources give the filling-in date as 1911.[7] More fill was added in the 1980s.[8] This fill " count the "fills", repetitive and off-putting.
  • Fixed.
• "Forgotten NY delineates" no idea what this is, so perhaps prefix it with "Website ..."
  • Done.
• "[4]:4[14]:146 " why isn't that "[4]:4, 146"? (maybe it doesn't work this way, I never use this style of citation...)
  • It refers to page 4 in reference #4, and page 146 in reference #14. I.e. for ref #4: "Stiles (1884), p. 4" and for #14: "Bolton (1934), p. 146". epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• "[15]:65[3]:9" [3] before [15].
  • Fixed.
• "bequeathed 60 acres" convert.
  • Fixed.
• "Norwegian" is piped to a redirect.
  • Fixed.
• Consider linking vaudeville for non-experts.
  • Done.
• "Flatbush Avenue streetcar route[17] (the present-day B41 bus[24][8]). " this is a cite mess. I would suggest putting all three in numerical order after the period. I'm sure our readers can wait one or two words before getting them and it would refresh the prose.
  • I reworded accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Image caption: Boardwalk of Bergen Beach - can we put a timeframe on this?
  • Done.
• Bergen Beach:[26] - the cite isn't necessary here as it's at the end of the quote.
  • Fixed.
• Just checking, the Trocadero Theatre was spelt Theatre and not Theater?
  • There are very few sources on this, but based on what I could find, it's spelled "Theatre". epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• " $25,000 in damages" (et seq) is there value in adding the inflation value for these figures to put them into modern context?
  • Yes, done.
• "Max Natanson and Mandlebaum & Levine " who or what were these?
  • Clarified. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That takes me to the "Redevelopment" section, away for a bit, back soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Continued

• Shouldn't "zip code" be "ZIP Code"?
  • Done.
• " counted in 2000." that's an Easter Egg link, perhaps " counted in the 2000 Census."
  • Done.
• 2000 Census is also overlinked.
  • Fixed, I really didn't notice this before, thanks. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Should really expand NYPD before using it as an initialism.
• "As of 2017, the 63rd Precinct reported 3 murders " is that "3 murders to the year up to 2017"?
  • Clarified.
• Quite a bit of SHOUTING in the ref titles.
  • Fixed.
• Some refs use "Accessed" instead of "Retrieved", be consistent.
  • Fixed.
• Avoid spaced hyphens in ref titles, use en-dashes per MOS instead.
  • Done.

That's about it for a quick run-through. As you can see, most of this is technical stuff, the article is basically already at GA quality, these pointers may just polish it up a bit, so I'll put it on hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I've replied to all the issues mentioned above. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  No problem, a pleasure. I'm content with your changes, so I'm promoting. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)