# Talk:Minetta Creek

The literature on this river is fairly inconsistent in naming it.  I chose "Minetta Creek" as the article title because that's what most 19th-20th century writers call it.  But there are many different permutations including creek, water, waters, river, rivulet, brook, stream, etc. and even a few for Minetta (Manette, Manetta, etc.). -- kosboot (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I see Eric W. Sanderson calls it "Minetta Water" - a phrase that I have not found in other sources. Geismar calls it "Minetta Waters." -- kosboot (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How the name of the river is pronounced? I'd like to see the IPA transcription in the article. --Jonah (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Minetta Creek. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703234838/http://www.nycgovparks.org/download/download.php?downloadFile=WSP_EAS%2Fappendix_3.pdf to http://www.nycgovparks.org/download/download.php?downloadFile=WSP_EAS%2Fappendix_3.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) 12:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe this article has been cleaned up enough that maybe it can be renominated for GA. I think I resolved all the issues raised in Talk:Minetta Creek/GA1. epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you've done.  When the article was first nominated I tried incorporating some of the corrections but I think I ran out of steam due to exhaustion (I don't know what happened to the list of criticisms the reviewers offered).  Let's hope it passes this time! - kosboot (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Minetta Creek/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this. ceranthor 17:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead
"Minetta Creek was one of the largest natural watercourses in Manhattan, New York City." - would it be overkill to clarify that the creek is in the US? Obviously it's in NYC and all but just a thought
"Debate continues on whether the creek still exists. Minetta Creek caused flooding in basements and construction sites from the mid-19th century through the mid-20th century. Pools of water were also found at several construction sites along the creek's course." - how long has there been debate for? the organization of this paragraph is confusing
Course
"Nearly two miles long" - I'd add a {{Convert}} to kilometers
"From there it flowed southward across what is today Washington Square Park, it then crossed southwest, traversing what is today Minetta Lane, one of the creek's namesake streets.[5][6]" - this is a run-on as is; should use a semicolon or rewrite to "and then it crossed"
too much "what is today"; use a different phrase every so often
Origins of name
seems fine.
More prose and reference and image comments forthcoming. ceranthor 16:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks for the comments. I believe these issues have all been addressed. epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Great! I'm hoping to post some more comments soon. ceranthor 22:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. I'll fix these tonight. epicgenius (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Colonial days
"In fact the filling-in had preceded real-estate speculators' infill, according to the British Headquarters Map of c 1782–83, when the British carried out extensive defenses of the city: "they dammed Minetta Water to create a lake in what is now the West Village"[12]" - punctuation?
Added.
"The Land Ordinance of 1796 – a U.S. federal cadastral survey done for purposes of taxation, also reprinted by Hoffman – laid out the line of West Street, which had been built over landfill, and noting three geographical points." - the last bit, "nothing three geographical points" doesn't work grammatically
Fixed.
"He concludes his note by stating" - this is present tense, but the rest of the verbs use the past tense in the paragraph
Fixed.
Covering
"archeologist" - think this is spelled "archaeologist"
"who wrote an archeological assessment" - same note as above
Done both.
"Viele was quoted as saying "I have no doubt that the water in Mr. Sayles's cellar comes from the sources of Minetta Creek."" - I'd add a citation for the direct quote here
Done.
"He went on to describe the source of Minetta Creek as a perennial spring." - cut out "went on"; it's such a redundant phrase
Done.
"Such springs are as natural as the island's rock formations and cannot be dammed, Viele concluded.[3] " - not really encyclopedic... I'd rephrase this or remove it
It has been rephrased. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"Thomas A. Janvier wrote: "Although Manetta Creek no longer is visible on the surface, it still flows in diminished volume through its ancient channel—as those living near or over it sometimes know to their cost." " - same note about citation after a direct quote
Done.
Encounters with the creek underground
Seems fine and engaging.
References
Ref 4 has an extra period
Fixed.
Does ref 5 have an accessdate? same with 16?
Fixed.
Ref 9 lacks a page number
What makes ref 22 a reliable source? same with 24? same with 38, 39, and 40?
@Ceranthor: 22 is a digitization of Village Voice from 1945. It isn't available anywhere else online.
24 is a digitization of records from 1890.
38, 39, and 40 are primary sources supporting the claim "Bloggers claim that the creek still exists, based on evidence of flooding in basements and cellars." epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Janvier, Thomas Allibone (1894). In Old New York. Harper & Brothers. pp. 86–9. - this isn't consistent with other page ranges which reuse the number in the tens place
Fixed.
ref 28 needs to be standardized with the other references; get rid of the all caps bit
Earwig's tool suggests checks out
I think this will be ready to promote once these are addressed. ceranthor 00:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Any progress since the other day? ceranthor 17:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: Yes, all of these have been fixed. I also explained how the five sources above are reliable. epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: It looks like there are still reference comments that have not been fixed. There are missing page numbers, and ref 28 needs to be fixed for the ALLCAPS bit of the title. ceranthor 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Alright, looks like you've fixed them. Passing; great work! ceranthor 18:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)