# Talk:Jacob Riis Park

I've been reading the incredibly tedious 1917 book  "History of the Rockaways" by Alfred H. Bellot
After indicating that the Neponsit section of the Rockaway Peninsula was conveyed to the Neponsit Realty Company by the West Rockaway Land Company in 1908, it states on page 26: "A section of Neponsit was purchased by New York City from the West Rockaway Land Company a few years ago, at the price of about one and a quarter million dollars.  The site was intended for a public park at the seashore, and is called the Jacob Riis Park.  It remains undeveloped as a park up to the present time.  A large city hospital for tubercular patients has been erected on a portion of the land."
I don't know if it's a valid source, but http://www.nps.gov/gate/historyculture/jamaica-bay-unit-places.htm states:
"Jacob Riis Park was established in 1912, and re-named for the noted reformer and photojournalist in 1914. From 1917 to 1928 the site was used by the United States Navy as Naval Air Station-Rockaway. Departing from NAS-Rockaway, on May 8, 1919, a Navy-Curtiss flying boat, the NC-4, became the first airplane to fly across the Atlantic Ocean. After the Navy left in 1928, Jacob Riis Park was developed for seaside recreation. The historic Bath House was opened in 1932, and remodeled during a major expansion of the park in 1937 under New York City Parks Commissioner Robert Moses. Jacob Riis Park was included in Gateway National Recreation Area in 1974."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.21.234 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jacob Riis Park. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/gate/jacob_riis_hsr.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/gate/jacob_riis_clr.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925085006/http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nc4-8.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nc4-8.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jacob Riis Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 19:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


### Criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Reviewer Feedback
#### Lead
Not an issue but curious about what's with the comment in the text.
I believe Tdorante10 included these when he was expanding the article, then commented some of the unnecessary/awkward wording out. He wrote most of the text on this page. epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Later on it says the park was transferred in 1974 but here 1972 (when the Gateway Recreation area was founded). Which is right (also made small tweak to that sentence)
Fixed. Tdorante10 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


#### Name
Recommend striking  "as documented by European settler Abraham Hewlett."
Done, though the phrase "European settler Abraham Hewlett" clarifies who had documented such a thing. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


#### History
Not sure that the last paragraph of Acquisition of park is necessary in such depth.
Could you clarify this? It looks appropriate, given the fact that this paragraph talks about a precursor to Jacob Riis Park. It is important because it is later contrasted to the final design of the park. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of decline and creation seems to just be a list of events in a way the rest of the article isn't. Not really a problem for GA but thought the observation merited noting.
I rephrased in a way that it would flow better. These all seem to be crimes or other events relating to decline. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Would encourage a read through of the 1990s to Present section. At points the seams of this having been put together during Wikipedia's time show. The most noticeable place for me was in regards to the tenses around the pipeline and whether as much detail as is present is needed for the Hurricane Sandy notes.
I split into two sections. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


#### Description
Much of the intro section is just collating material found elsewhere in the article.
That's the purpose of this intro section. It serves as a "lead" for all of the other features described in the subsections. The details are just mentioned again in a singular place. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Without delving into the sources the various parking lot numbers don't make a lot of sense. Some added context would be useful.
I removed the part that stated that the combined area of three parking lots is 1 mile. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
That's helpful.
I'm surprised that the only depiction in pop culture is the cracker jack commercial. That said does it need three sources to prove it?
Removed 1 duplicate source. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


#### Sources
I do not understand how RP is being used here. For instance for <ref name="NPS-Riis-Tilden-Jun1989" />{{rp|5 (PDF p.11)}} why isn't it just <ref name="NPS-Riis-Tilden-Jun1989" />{{rp|11)}}? This is not a requirement for GA but I am curious (in case there's a reason I can understand better) and because it seems like this could get to FAC someday where such things do matter.
@Barkeep49: Although {{RP}} is used to provide page numbers, the reader will probably be confused at first whether it is the PDF page 11, or if it's the document page 11. The extra notation removes the uncertainty. epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I have checked sources at the depth required for GA and found no issues. I have not paid any attention to FAC level sourcing requirements but what work I've seen would suggest promising results there.


#### Other GA Criterion
No issues with images
No copyright issues


### Discussion
Can @Epicgenius: or other interested editor confirm they still wish to go through the GA process before I begin my review? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I am still interested in a review. Thank you for taking this up. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Beginning read through below. Processwise I tend to do a rather detailed read through (which can take a couple of days) addressing issues like sourcing and such and making suggestions (I tend to be the opposite of Bold to make sure that someone who really knows something is making content changes). I then circle back around to some of the "easier" criterion like picture checking at the end. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This article had the fewest issues of any GA review I've done so far. Happy to be passing it. Congrats to the the editors who worked on this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)