Talk:New York City/Archive 10: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Former FAC? |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
:Great decisions, Jleon. Thanks! [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
:Great decisions, Jleon. Thanks! [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Former FAC? == |
|||
The Former FAC directs to the current one, I don't know whether it was added early or there was another nomination, or what happened as this is my first time seeing this article. Could someone clarify this? [[User:SandBoxer|SandBoxer]] 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:54, 5 April 2006
{{FAC}}
should be substituted at the top of the article talk page
New York City/Archive 10 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
New York City/Archive 10 has been listed as one of the 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. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. |
Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
Template:FAOL It has been decided that New York City should remain at that name and not at New York, New York. For the discussion that led to this decision see archive 2 and the additional comments in a section of Archive 5.
Archives | |
---|---|
Archive 2 (Title of article) | Archive 3 |
Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Archive 6 |
Archived comments
I moved all the comments to Talk:New York City/Archive 6 and started this new page. Wv235 01:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Preparing for feature status
This article has undergone a lot of work and is close to feature status. It was nominated once before and failed. The main objection was that the article was not comprehensive enough. Secondary objections were about POV and poor writing. After major edits and additions, if anything the article is now too comprehensive at 60+ kbs. I believe the POV and poor writing issues have been corrected.
It's time to revisit a feature status nomination. Before a nomination takes place the article should be subjected to rigorous peer review. There should also be a discussion of what to trim to get the article down to a more reasonable size -- we can't do 30kbs, but 50 is within reach. I propose cutting the "skyline" section and making it part of a new daughter article on New York City architecture. Thoughts? Wv235 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- What should be done with the skyline section? I propose moving it out of this main general article and making it part of a new daughter article on NYC buildings and architecture. If no one objects I'll go ahead and make this change. Wv235 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. That sounds reasonable to me. Uris 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-That sounds like a good idea for an interesting offshoot article. I would still like to see that Midtown pic kept somewhere in the main article though. Perhaps we could create a subsection for buildings, architecture and urban layout, and then link to the separate article from there. --Jleon 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved the skyline section (with the photo you speak of, Jleon) to a new daughter article: Buildings and architecture of New York City. I'm also copying it here in case we decide to go back to how it was -- although everyone should bear in mind how long the main NYC article already is. Wv235 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
--Perhaps we should still have a small subsection on Buildings and Architecture (instead of "Skyline"). The article is now shorter than many other city articles like London, LA, Chicago, etc and a small addition will not add significantly to it. --Jleon 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
--OK I went ahaead and rewrote a scaled-down version for the main article. It only increased the article length to 58k, which we can easily accomodated by trimming other sections. --Jleon 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Jleon, I like your summary. Nice and concise. I think the AT&T building has been renamed. I could be mistaken... for some reason I even think I saw a Wikipedia article about it (with the new name). Wv235 01:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
--You're right, people tend to call it the Sony Building now, but I'm not sure if the official name was ever changed. Either way, there hasn't been an article written yet on it. Maybe I'll get around to doing that soon. --Jleon 13:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Skyline
The skyline of New York is one of the most recognizeable in the world. Many of New York's skyscrapers pioneered a new urban form that saw city building shift from the low-scale European tradition to the verticle rise of business districts. New York City has the most skyscrapers in the world with 47 buildings taller than 200 meters, and 2 taller than 300 meters; Hong Kong has 43 buildings taller than 200 meters and 5 taller than 300 meters, while Chicago has 19 buildings taller than 200 meters and 5 taller than 300 meters. New York actually has three separately recognizable skylines: Midtown Manhattan, Lower Manhattan, and Downtown Brooklyn.
Icons of the city skyline include the Empire State Building, a 102-story Art Deco building finished in 1931, and the Chrysler Building, built in 1930 and the first structure in the world to surpass the 1,000 foot threshold. The GE Building is a slim gothic skyscraper and the focal point of Rockefeller Center. The super modern Condé Nast Building is one of the most important examples of green design in skyscrapers in the United States. Environmentally friendly gas-fired absorption chillers, along with a high-performing insulating and shading curtain wall, ensure that the building does not need to be heated or cooled for the majority of the year.
Accurate Demographics
Twice on the page (in the table and in the text) it says that the city is 27% black. Later in the article, it says that the city is 11.5% African American. Which is correct? Or do the terms not correspond exactly to each other? Uris 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
--Carribean and African immigrants aren't usually included as African-Americans unless they claim to be so on the census. I've seen the 11.5% and 27% numbers in other places, but I've also seen 9% for African-American and 30% for 'black'. Either way, it seems fairly accurate to me. --Jleon 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sports Section
Seeing as I added the addition of the New York Rangers to the information under the sports section, and have now seen it was removed between then and now, I need to ask why. While I understand that in the United States, hockey is considered something of a fringe sport -- ranking fourth in ratings behind the other major sports -- the New York Rangers are still an important part of New York City, and additionally have just as much background as the other teams in the area do. Especially when you factor in that they were one of the very first teams in the National Hockey League. If no one objects, I'd like to add one paragraph in concerning the New York Rangers once more.--Resident Lune 01:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Resident Lune, I believe I was the one who removed that paragraph. It wasn't deleted, but simply moved to the main Sports in New York City article. My reasoning was that as you point out, hockey is not a sport the likes of football or baseball in the US, but nevertheless certainly bears mentioning (especially since it relates to a northeastern city - hockey is regionally more popular than in the rest of the US). But the main NYC article desperately needs editing for concision, not more additions -- it's too long as it is. More contributions are great, but it's time to redirect them to the major daughter articles: History of New York City, Geography and environment of New York City, Culture of New York City, Media of New York City, Government of New York City, Economy of New York City, Education in New York City, etc. Wv235 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Understood. Your reasoning makes sense to me, and thank you for clarifying that it was moved to a sub-topic concerning New York City in a different article made specifically for the city's sports. I appreciate the response.--Resident Lune 04:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Great photo of Lower Manhattan for NYC Projects
Cinemas
A list of cinemas in new york city should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.205.86 (talk • contribs) .
- I disagree, the list would be too long for a top level article. Feel free to create an article like List of theaters in New York City however. -Quasipalm 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Broken Link
- 纽约市.cn - PRC's Official website for the city <-just goes to NYC.com now. Please Fix or delete. VarunRajendran
Photos much worse now
It's been a while since I visited this article and, in my opinion, the photos are much weaker now. It's much more like a glossy travel brochure rather than an accurate view of what the city is like. I like the subway photo, but why take out the photo of people on Fifth Avenue that shows some diversity? Why add a photo of a Dutch painting just because it's in a museum (why not illustrate the Art section with a New York artist like Warhol or Haring?) Why take out the Outer Borough photos, like the one taken in Jackson Heights? At one point, we took great care to ensure that all the photos weren't just taken in Manhattan; now, again, they all are. The buildings are all precious here, the people almost uniformly white (with the exception of the subway photo), and the street musician photo looks posed.
The idea of Wikipedia is to show things as they are. The article now looks like some kind of travel-agency view of New York: sort of stilted, too highbrow, and duller than the city deserves. Thoughts?Moncrief 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I dunno, I see people of color in the Times Square, Central Park, Grand Central and Stock Exchange images. Nevertheless, I agree that there should be images from the outer boros. The article seems to have been hijacked by Manhattanites (of course, the city has been, too). -- Mwanner | Talk 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I know it's still Manhattan, but for the "art" image, I would like to see something of Harlem, such as the Apollo Theater, given it's major significance in NYC's (and African-American, and simply American) cultural heritage. I don't yet see any good photo here that fits the bill, though. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think this is that serious of a concern. For one, all city pags have more images of the urban core parts of the city than they do outer neighborhoods (see LA for an example). Also, there are just a ton more images of Manhattan on the commons to choose from -- so we need to take more pics of outer boroughs. I don't think it's about manhattanites taking over the page. -Quasipalm 03:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
--Well technically not all the photos are of just Manhattan: the one of the Brooklyn Bridge shows the coastline of Brooklyn, the subway shot is on a Manhattan-bound F train that is presumably in Queens, and the SOL pic is in NY Harbor. There really is currently a derth of good photos of the other (I won't say "outer") boroughs though. --Jleon 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
--OK, I added a nice shot of the Unisphere and moved the Times Square pic up to the parapgraph on theater. Sorry I had to cut the Van Gogh painting, there was nowhere else for it to go. --Jleon 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Great decisions, Jleon. Thanks! Moncrief 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Former FAC?
The Former FAC directs to the current one, I don't know whether it was added early or there was another nomination, or what happened as this is my first time seeing this article. Could someone clarify this? SandBoxer 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)