# Talk:Fort Tryon Park

Article has been tagged for needing references since 2010. Please feel free to reincorporate this material with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As discussed at WP:IPC, and as it is my understanding is the general practice at many articles here that incorporate such sections, when adding "in popular culture" items secondary sourcing should be provided establishing that the references are significant in some manner. We do not need an indiscriminate list of occurrences of Fort Tryon Park in films; rather we should focus on scenarios where the occurrence received notice from independent sources. Additionally the current listings make claims that should be verifiable via references. DonIago (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

YOur understand is incorreect.  Popcult entries which are straightforward description are, in fact, sourced by the media item (book, film, etc) which they refer to.  Only those which stray into interpretation or analysis need to be sourced. BMK (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like we'll need to hear from other editors so we can get a consensus one way or the other. DonIago (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Tryon 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604193021/http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/battle_of_fort_washington_35.html to http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/battle_of_fort_washington_35.html
Added archive https://archive.is/20130414192750/http://www.forttryonparktrust.org/about/friends_committee.html to http://www.forttryonparktrust.org/about/friends_committee.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040910211907/http://www.whidc.org/home.html to http://whidc.org/home.html
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) 14:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Tryon 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108233236/http://newleafrestaurant.com/about/new-leaf-fort-tryon-park/ to http://newleafrestaurant.com/about/new-leaf-fort-tryon-park/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107090813/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141224/hudson-heights/uptowns-new-leaf-restaurant-wedding-venue-abruptly-close to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141224/hudson-heights/uptowns-new-leaf-restaurant-wedding-venue-abruptly-close
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ninja1.dnainfo.com/neighborhoods/washington-heights-inwood
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217211101/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110309/washington-heights-inwood/fort-tryon-park-stars-adjustment-bureau to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110309/washington-heights-inwood/fort-tryon-park-stars-adjustment-bureau
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) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Tryon Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


### Criteria
1. Well-written

Prose clear, concise, and understandable Y See some of the comments below
Spelling/Grammar Y I corrected a few minor issues as I went along.
Lead Y
Layout Y
Buzzwords/fiction/lists Y
2. Verifiable

No original research Y
List of references properly formatted Y
Inline citations from RS Y
No COPYVIO Y None detected.
3. Broad in coverage

Covers main aspects Y
Stays on topic Y, but see comment below at the public image section
4. Neutral Y
5. Stable Y
6. Illustrated if possible

Media tagged for copyright status Y Images all appear to be tagged as uploader's own work except for one, which is tagged as a donated image.  There is no obvious reason to doubt the own work tags.
Media relevant Y
I have one concern about the media.  One of the images, the image of patrons on the lawn, shows a fairly close, high-enough resolution to be recognizable shot of a patron's face.  I'm not super familiar with the nuances of privacy law, but is this a situation in which the subject would have to give permission for the image to be released?  The person would not be trackable to get said permission, so somebody probably better look into the applicable privacy law with that.
@Hog Farm: I don't think this should be an issue, as it is not disallowed in Wikimedia Commons, but I'll look into replacing it. I took hundreds of pictures of the park a couple months ago. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: That ought to be good again.  Since Commons doesn't disallow it, that'll work. Hog Farm (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


### Notes
"Geography and geology" Is "inter-laid" usually hyphenated?  I've always seen it as "interlaid."  Also, the redlink to Dyckman Street Fault should be taken care of, either through removal of the wikilinks or article creation.

Resolved the "interlaid".
Removed the redlink. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"Site" "As of 1711, leaders declared" Which leaders?

Harlem leaders. I fixed this. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"Late-20th and early-21st century improvements" WP:SEAOFBLUE at "Bette Midler's nonprofit organization, New York Restoration Project.  I'd recommend "nonprofit organization" to be the one to be delinked.

Rearranged the sentence to retain all of the link. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"Plantings" Is "Picnic Grounds" a specifically-named portion of the park?  If not, it shouldn't be capitalized.

Yes, it is a proper name for the park feature, per the NYCLPC report. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"Playgrounds" "a triangle-shaped play area that primarily serves Inwood" What is Inwood?

It is a neighborhood. This was explained in the lead. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"The Cloisters" Should the first b in "belgian blocks" be capitalized?

Yes, I have done that. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"Linden Terrace" The point is the highest spot in the Manhattan landscape, but not the highest spot in Manhattan.  You should probably explain what you mean by this in the article.

It is the highest landscape feature, which is what the Times says. I.e. the highest point on Manhattan that doesn't require climbing a skyscraper. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"Concession building" SEAOFBLUE from the improvements section again.

Removed the duplicate link. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Caption of the gazebo image I don't believe that gazebo should be capitalized in that usage.

Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"Public use and perception" I think listing the number of citations for public intercourse in 2018 constitutes excessive detail, although you may disagree with me about this.

Done this. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I haven't checked the references yet, I'll get along to that soon.  I've left some preliminary comments about the other criteria.  Good work.  Hog Farm (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


### Sources
Source 1: This takes me to a search function page.  It would be nice to have the link directly to the subsite where Fort Tryon Park is listed, if possible.
Source 146: Is a bare reference name.

Fixed both source 1 and 146. Now both are combined under a single source. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


### External links
Two of the external links, the Friends of the Park link and the Annual Medieval Festival link, are links to Wayback Machine page archives.  I'm not sure if that is compatible with the requirement at WP:LINKSTOAVOID that external links be to a functioning website.

Removed one of the links & replaced the other. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Overall, very good.  See my notes above, most of the issues should be fairly easy fixes. Hog Farm (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the "copy edits" made by Baffle gab 1978 since, in general, they did not improve the article.  Not only did they reduce the quality of the prose to a level I would expect to find on Simple English Wikipedia, but some of the changes were actually incorrect grammatically. These edits should not be restored unless there is a consensus here that they improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do agree with the reversion. A few of the changes were harmless, but many were indeed incorrect. More importantly, subtle changes in meaning were introduced, or outright errors such as changing the location of Ft. George, or substituting "United Kingdom" for "Great Britain". Station1 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken and Station1: Thanks for the replies. I've asked to cancel the copyedit request. I should've discussed with you first, but as it happens, I forgot about that. I wanted to potentially bring this up to a higher quality later, maybe even match the featured article quality of the Cloisters. So that's why I wanted a second opinion.
Baffle gab1978, sorry for wasting your time. I generally think your edits are good, but it does seem that some of the edits are incorrect, which I had intended to fix afterward. epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
If copy edits are improvements, there should be no need to correct them.  Simply put, copy edits which need to be corrected are bad copy edits.  I would suggest to Baffle gab that they find another line of work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, I was trying to fix the references, but I see you've reverted these edits. I have fixed these refs again, but kept the previous wording. epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
All good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)