Template:Did you know nominations/Bushwick Inlet Park

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Bushwick Inlet Park

(

)

... that although New York City's Bushwick Inlet Park was proposed in 2005, the land for the park was not fully purchased until 2016? Source: Brooklyn Paper, November 25, 2016. "Mayor DeBlasio has reached a $160-million deal to buy the final stretch of Williamsburg waterfront land the city needs to finish Bushwick Inlet Park, finally ending locals’ years-long fight to force it to honor a decade-old promise to transform the lot into a sprawling green space. [...] As a longtime local, [Norman Brodsky] wanted to see the city make good on finishing the park that it first pledged to build in 2005 in exchange for rezoning the neighborhood for luxury high-rises, he says — just not without getting a cut."
- ALT1:... that the acquisition of one 11-acre (4.5 ha) parcel for New York City's Bushwick Inlet Park cost $160 million? Source: Brooklyn Paper
- ALT2:... that the construction of Bushwick Inlet Park was proposed as a condition of the rezoning of two neighborhoods in New York City? Source: NY Times 2015. "In 2005, a rezoning of almost 200 blocks of Williamsburg and parts of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, allowed for the construction of high-end residential buildings along the water. As part of that deal, the community was promised a 28-acre green space to be called Bushwick Inlet Park."

Comment: Starting August 4, I (Epicgenius) will be offline for an extended period of time.
Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Loxahatchee Groves

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC).

Overall good to go. Specifically, the:

article content meets the criteria as: new enough (5x expanded with original content in the 7 days prior to nom), long enough (2695 words compared to 1500 target), within policy (article meets GNG, content meets NPOV/VER, and text passes CLOP checks)
hook meets the expected criteria as: covered by a reliable/verifiable ref, and interesting enough
author/nom criteria is met: QPQ demonstrated

In short: This is GTG in my view.

Guliolopez (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)