Talk:Forest Park Carousel

Forest Park Carousel has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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: January 5, 2024. (Reviewed version).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amusement Parks Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Forest Park Carousel appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that after the Forest Park Carousel (pictured) was acquired for $30,000 in 1972, one of its later operators likened the deal to "buying a Rembrandt for $25"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Forest Park Carousel.

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Forest Park Carousel. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 06:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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 SL93 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Forest Park Carousel

... that the Forest Park Carousel, acquired for $30,000 in 1972, was later appraised at $1.5 million by a Sotheby's expert? Source: Lubrano, Alfred (May 28, 1989). "Forest Park's exhilarating ride". New York Daily News. p. 597.
- ALT1: ... that after the Forest Park Carousel was acquired for $30,000 in 1972, one of its later operators likened the deal to "buying a Rembrandt for $25"? Source: Lubrano, Alfred (May 28, 1989). "Forest Park's exhilarating ride". New York Daily News. p. 597.
- ALT2: ... that the Forest Park Carousel is older than the carousel that it replaced? Source: Forest Park Carousel (PDF) (Report). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. June 25, 2013. p. 1.
- ALT3: ... that the Forest Park Carousel, one of two known surviving carousels built by D. C. Muller, later was the first carousel to become a New York City landmark? Source: Over a Century Old, a Carousel Is Given Landmark Status
- ALT4: ... that in 2013, the Forest Park Carousel was the first carousel to become a New York City landmark? Source: Over a Century Old, a Carousel Is Given Landmark Status
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Last of Us (franchise)
- Comment: More hooks later

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC).Reply

Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Epicgenius: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago10 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forest Park Carousel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This looks like a fun one :) I'll be reviewing this using the table below. Comments to follow shortly! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Epicgenius, initial review is finished, I'll put the article on hold now. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 22:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Unexpectedlydian: Thanks for the review. I've addressed the remaining issues that you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your quick response :) I went ahead and added alt descriptions to the images. All good to go now, happy to promote to GA. Well done! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 16:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead ~~Wikilink Forest Park maybe?~~ Description Y Original carousel Y Current carousel Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sections Y Layout Y Words to watch None identified. Fiction N/A List incorporation Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources cited correctly and in the correct place. Bibliography in the correct place.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Source check Due to the quantity of citations, I will mainly be checking citations that are used multiple times in the article. Landmarks Preservation Commission 2013, p. 3. Y National Park Service 2004, p. 3. Y Landmarks Preservation Commission 2013, p. 4. ~~The pavilion was originally designed by Victor Christ-Janer as an octagonal structure In the source, it states that the design was a "circular structure". Not sure if these are essentially the same.~~ ~~I got it mixed up; the current pavilion is octagonal. My bad. Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)~~Reply Landmarks Preservation Commission 2013, p. 5. Two other horses were made of fiberglass and may have been manufactured by the Fabricon Design Group, which renovated the ride in the late 1980s. I think this info comes from a citation on p.9 of the source. ~~Good catch; I've fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)~~Reply Farrell, Paul (May 27, 1999). Afterward, the groups asked the New York state government to place the ride on the New York State Register of Historic Places and, by extension, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). I can't see this references in the article (apologies if I'm missing something!). The first sentence of the source says, "The campaign to designate the Forest Park Carousel a special landmark has shifted its focus to New York State because city officials say the ride doesn't qualify." The context is that they sought city landmark status and failed, so they began seeking state landmark status. As for the NRHP status, I just copied this source from somewhere else, which does mention the status. Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply Lubrano, Alfred (May 28, 1989). Y Holland, Beth (May 15, 1989). Regional newspaper Newsday wrote that he was "instrumental in bringing the carousel to Forest Park". The actual quote from the Newsday article is "instrumental in bringing the Muller carousel to Queens." ~~My bad, I copied what the LPC source said rather than the original quote. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)~~Reply ~~A Newsday reporter said the carousel's valuation was "like finding a carton of Faberge eggs in the bottom of the corner grocer's dairy case" This quote should be attributed to Lubrano (citation 14).~~ ~~Fixed. (I also changed Newsday reporter to New York Daily News reporter; I don't know how that got mixed up). Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)~~Reply Guberman, Ira D. (November 25, 1973). Y National Park Service 2004, p. 4. Y Landmarks Preservation Commission 2013, p. 6. Y Hanc, John (July 24, 2003). Y Wagner, Patricia (May 1, 1972). Y Hogwood, Ben (December 18, 2008). Y Colangelo, Lisa L. (May 24, 1989). Y Colangelo, Lisa L. (November 29, 2011). Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	From source spot checks, happy that there has been no OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector brings up nothing of concern. From spot checks, happy that there is no plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Content after source check that this article covers the history of the carousel.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is detailed but not unnecessarily so.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evidence of edit wars or disruptive editing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged with copyright status. ~~All images need alt text.~~
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and have captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Add topic