The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello The Spirit of Oohoowahoo and Epicgenius, I will be taking up the review for this nomination. Since this is a large article, I'll be dividing up my review in parts and will present the entire review over the course of a few days. I will ping both of you again after I finish each part of it, if that is fine with you two. Hope my feedback will be helpful and I get to learn something new in the process. Tayi ArajakateTalk04:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate That's great to hear, thanks so much! I will have solid internet access for the next three days so I can respond to the first part of the review and then if you want to take it from there Epicgenius it would be much appreciated. Many thanks for taking on this review despite the length of the page! The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Spirit of Oohoowahoo and Epicgenius, I have reviewed more or less half of the article (the first five sections) and will go through the rest either tomorrow or the day after. I wasn't as thorough as I would have liked so, after I finish the next half, I will do an ending review of the entire article along with an assessment and might bring up issues that I spot in any of these sections. If you have any questions, concerns or anything else with regards to the issues I've brought up, feel free to express them. Tayi ArajakateTalk16:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, sorry for the delay, I have responded in the comments below and went through the article as well. At this point, I don't think there's anything else left so I'm just going to wait for the religion section after which I'll promote it to GA. Good work on the article in general! Courtesy ping, Epicgenius. Tayi ArajakateTalk23:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the new section and it looks much better, couldn't find any issues in it so I'm going to promote the article. Congratulations on your successful GA nomination! Tayi ArajakateTalk09:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second and third paragraph should be merged, made more chronological and expanded a bit. Otherwise, it sounds somewhat confusing at present. I would suggest something along the linkes of " Arriving in ... reciprocating. To the Dutch ... "Forest Hill". Even after ... maintain residence in Washington Heights. None of the land ... Harlem to the South. The last land claims ... settlement in 1715. For the greater part ... estates." In addition, it could also specify that the Dutch repeatedly attempted to drive them out of which Kieft's War was a part of and mention that the Washington Heights before being populated with the wealthy landlords was a secluded area with farms and woods.
I merged them and added these in chronological order. Not sure about that last part - maybe Spirit may disagree, but I'm leaning toward adding it as well. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the wealthy landlords during the urbanisation? If possible, it could find a mention.
This generally happened elsewhere around Manhattan as well, but they either moved elsewhere, kept the land, and leased it for development; or they sold all their land and moved elsewhere. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still want this to be specified? It could be difficult to find a source in terms of generally describing what the landowners did. I get why it coukd be useful but to be fair I did describe the fate of the Audubon, Paterno, and Billings estates as examples. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate, I believe the hyphen would also be correct; in expanded form, it would be "five-story [tenements] and six-story [tenements]". If it were "five and six-story", however, then that would be the same as "five [tenements] and six-story [tenements]". Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is not accessible for "[T]his new housing led the total population of Manhattan above 155th Street to grow from just 8,000 in 1900 to 110,000 by 1920." So I have one question regarding it, is the population increase solely/predominanty due to the new housing in Washington Heights?
Considering that Manhattan above 155th Street is just 3 neighborhoods (Washington Heights, Inwood, and the tiny exclave of Marble Hill), that is correct. Inwood wasn't as far along in development yet and Marble Hill was never too populous. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the majority of American-born parents is confused, could just call them something like from "from non-immigrant backgrounds"?
Culture seems a bit incomplete. What about people other than Dominicans and nothing other than graffities?
For culture, the Dominican community is the dominant community within Washington Heights, and art is pretty noteworthy. If you're asking for the demographic makeup of the neighborhood in particular, the section above that is about demographics. Otherwise, I'm not sure there is anything to add that would make this more "complete". Perhaps it's the lack of text under the second-level header that isn't also under a third-level subheader, but I think Spirit did a good job covering all the major points. Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the current section is noteworthy and should be present. My concern is that it doesn't mention other aspects of culture such as food, clubs, historical sites, etc. It also doesn't discuss the cultural impact other communities such as say Cubans or Puerto Ricans may have, there also seems to be significant number of Jews. Demographics only provides population figures. Tayi ArajakateTalk17:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding historical sites, that is a good point, though that's already covered in "Points of interest". However, I worry that if we were to include lists of restaurants, clubs, etc. (besides those that are particularly notable), it could become a list of trivia that could fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'll look into adding a little about other cultural impacts. Epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Epicgenius on this, I think it's better to keep the "Culture" section to something that can actually be talked about at decent length. In an attempt to talk about community organizations in a previous version of the article I definitely ended up doing a list-style thing that isn't very encyclopedic. I mean even the art section as I have it is pushing it because there isn't a whole lot to talk about there. If I were to add something about Cuban / Puerto Rican / Jewish culture I don't know if it would make sense, I feel like that would be a better fit for a page like Jews in New York City or even Manhattan because it really isn't neighborhood-specific. The "Little Dominican Republic" though is definitely neighborhood specific and it leads into discussing the neighborhood as one of the earliest and most significant communities for the group, something that can't be said for any other ethnicity really. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright although I don't think it needs to be per se neighborhood specific, so I would still suggest adding something as long as the neighborhood is a part of it and that's mentioned in the sources, if possible. Tayi ArajakateTalk23:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't locate any other issues with these sections.
"Although it was initially contiguous with Fort Tryon Park (a condition for John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s donation of the Fort Tryon parkland)," could sound confusing for those who haven't read the later subsection on Fort Tyron Park. I would suggest rephrasing it to specify that the Fort Tyron was an addition to the Fort Washington Park.
I clarified the sentence. Fort Tryon wasn't an addition to Fort Washington - they were connected at one point, but Henry Hudson Parkway now separates the two parks and there is no connection between them. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a suggestion but the section appears rather ambiguous in terms of what is and can be included in it; the landmark and attractions could instead be moved under culture and the parks could have their own section instead of being a subsection under it.
I split the two sections, but I kept them as separate second-level sections. Generally, in other articles such as Morningside Heights, Manhattan, I generally included landmarks and geography as part of the same section, though I'm not sure how appropriate that would be here. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The separation of the section removed the ambiguity. For the purpose of fulfilling the GA criteria, I don't think anything else is necessary in terms of sectioning. Tayi ArajakateTalk22:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 266 should be replaced with a secondary source. It does not directy verify that the newspaper has a focus on Washington Heights and Inwood in particular.
Done.
Ref 268 should be replaced with a secondary source as well. The quote, "more than half of them in Washington Heights" is not directly supported by it.
I removed the quoted section. However, I could not find a secondary source that shows the number of newspaper boxes that distribute the paper. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The health section should specify either in text or at least through a note that the statistics are from 2018.
This date is already in the beginning of the section (and several other places throughout the section). For example, As of 2018, preterm births... Could you clarify what changes are needed? Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, all of the data is from a profile in 2018 but this isn't very clear in the section. I think a beginning sentence mentioning the profile may be better alternative. Tayi ArajakateTalk23:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, the section on education could talk about Spanish literacy in the district.
I added a section on primary languages spoken in the area. I couldn't readily find info about Spanish literacy per se, however. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literacy I highly doubt there would be statistics on. I'll add the more specific ACS data on speaking English / Spanish and also data on the percentage of students who are English as a Second Language. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Public primary and secondary schools are provided to New York City students by the New York City Department of Education." This might need an inline citation.
The list under "Unzoned middle and middle/high schools" breaks off in the middle and becomes text and then becomes a list again. I would suggest including the less notable schools as a list of "other unzoned middle and middle/high schools" after the text. Alternatively, the text for the two schools could just be removed and they could be incorporated into the list.
In NYC, a specific distinction is made between zoned and unzoned schools; the former prioritize admissions for, or only take students from, the neighborhood while the latter do not. Are you asking if it's possible to combine the respective lists of zoned and unzoned schools? Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section called religious institutions is just two lists, if possible it could expanded to cover the contemporary state of religion in the neighbourhood in general. For example if there are statistics available on religious denominations in the neighborhood, then they should be mentioned.
Yep it definitely doesn't look too good in current form, I'll do a rewrite to put it more in style of the Harlem, Morningside Heights, and Sunset Park pages which don't have lists per se but list some examples as part of broader descriptions. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses a lot of relative time references, in particular the terms "today" or "now". I would recommend replacing them with precise date or removing them by rephrasing their respective sentences.
Done.
There are three New York Post(RSP entry) references in the article which I would recommend replacing, particularly the one cited for decrease in the rate of crime.
Removed.
There is an over-reliance on primary source in the latter sections of the article. Consider using secondary sources more.
I have done so where possible, but it is hard to use secondary sources in some places, especially with regard to the data that is collected by the city. However, for education, religion, etc. I'll try to find secondary sources, as some of these exist. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehension: The article is generally well written.
Pass
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (prose)
The prose is largely clear, concise and understandable.
Pass
(b) (MoS)
There are manual of style issues. (Resolved)
Pass
Verifiability: Some issues related to verifiability exist.
Pass
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (references)
The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all lines in the body.
Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
There are some problems with the sources used, see comments above. (Resolved)
Pass
(c) (original research)
No original research or synthesis was found.
Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
No copyright violation or plagiarism found.
Pass
Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.
Pass
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
The article has a broad coverage of all major aspects.
Pass
(b) (focused)
The article remains on topic without any unnecessary deviations.
Pass
Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass
Notes
Result
The article is complaint with the policy on neutral point of view.
Pass
Stability: The article is stable.
Pass
Notes
Result
No ongoing edit warring or content disputes exist.
Pass
Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
Images used are marked with their appropriate copyright statuses.
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
Use and captions are good.
Pass
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pass