Talk:Washington Heights, Manhattan/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 04:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello The Spirit of Oohoowahoo and Epicgenius, I will be taking up the review for this nomination. Since this is a large article, I'll be dividing up my review in parts and will present the entire review over the course of a few days. I will ping both of you again after I finish each part of it, if that is fine with you two. Hope my feedback will be helpful and I get to learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tayi Arajakate, that sounds great, thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Epicgenius, sorry if I'm delaying this one a bit. I will present the first part of the review in the next 24 hours. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tayi Arajakate, no problem. There's no rush, I just forgot to reply earlier. Epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tayi Arajakate That's great to hear, thanks so much! I will have solid internet access for the next three days so I can respond to the first part of the review and then if you want to take it from there Epicgenius it would be much appreciated. Many thanks for taking on this review despite the length of the page! The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  The Spirit of Oohoowahoo and Epicgenius, I have reviewed more or less half of the article (the first five sections) and will go through the rest either tomorrow or the day after. I wasn't as thorough as I would have liked so, after I finish the next half, I will do an ending review of the entire article along with an assessment and might bring up issues that I spot in any of these sections. If you have any questions, concerns or anything else with regards to the issues I've brought up, feel free to express them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, sorry for the delay, I have responded in the comments below and went through the article as well. At this point, I don't think there's anything else left so I'm just going to wait for the religion section after which I'll promote it to GA. Good work on the article in general! Courtesy ping, Epicgenius. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate I have now finished with the religion section! Thanks for your patience, and thanks for reviewing! The article has without a doubt been greatly improved by this process. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I went through the new section and it looks much better, couldn't find any issues in it so I'm going to promote the article. Congratulations on your successful GA nomination! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments (History)

• The last line of the first paragraphs should be the first line. The Woodland period precedes the Wacquaesgreeks.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• It isn't clear from the text that the area of Washington Heights was only a part of the region called Wacquaesgeek.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• The "however" seems unnecessary in the second paragraph.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• The second and third paragraph should be merged, made more chronological and expanded a bit. Otherwise, it sounds somewhat confusing at present. I would suggest something along the linkes of " Arriving in ... reciprocating. To the Dutch ... "Forest Hill". Even after ... maintain residence in Washington Heights. None of the land ... Harlem to the South. The last land claims ... settlement in 1715. For the greater part ... estates." In addition, it could also specify that the Dutch repeatedly attempted to drive them out of which Kieft's War was a part of and mention that the Washington Heights before being populated with the wealthy landlords was a secluded area with farms and woods.
  • I merged them and added these in chronological order. Not sure about that last part - maybe Spirit may disagree, but I'm leaning toward adding it as well. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay I added that The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Now in their control, the British renamed ..." could better phrased to "Under British control the position was renamed to ..."
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Years later, during the British evacuation of New York, ..." should specify the year instead.
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• The "however" in the last paragraph of early history also seems unnecessary.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• What happened to the wealthy landlords during the urbanisation? If possible, it could find a mention.
  • This generally happened elsewhere around Manhattan as well, but they either moved elsewhere, kept the land, and leased it for development; or they sold all their land and moved elsewhere. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You still want this to be specified? It could be difficult to find a source in terms of generally describing what the landowners did. I get why it coukd be useful but to be fair I did describe the fate of the Audubon, Paterno, and Billings estates as examples. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

    I would say yes, it should be added if source-able. That said, this is just a suggestion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• "five- and six-story" should be "five and six-storey".
  • It is an American subject; the spelling "story" is correct in this context. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    Right, didn't realise that was the spelling used in American English. Isn't the lone "-" a typo though? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    Tayi Arajakate, I believe the hyphen would also be correct; in expanded form, it would be "five-story [tenements] and six-story [tenements]". If it were "five and six-story", however, then that would be the same as "five [tenements] and six-story [tenements]". Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• The citation is not accessible for "[T]his new housing led the total population of Manhattan above 155th Street to grow from just 8,000 in 1900 to 110,000 by 1920." So I have one question regarding it, is the population increase solely/predominanty due to the new housing in Washington Heights?
  • Considering that Manhattan above 155th Street is just 3 neighborhoods (Washington Heights, Inwood, and the tiny exclave of Marble Hill), that is correct. Inwood wasn't as far along in development yet and Marble Hill was never too populous. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• "the majority of American-born parents is confused, could just call them something like from "from non-immigrant backgrounds"?
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• "(the Irish, however, were most concentrated in Inwood)" seems unnecessary.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• White flight is wikilinked twice.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• "the highest level since 1950" doesn't need the "level".
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 80 should be page 17 and not 7.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments (Geography, demographics, culture, sports)

• Geography section should mention the positions of the parks and any features, they might possess.
  • After going through the section on parks, I don't think this is necessary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the geography section is a bit confusing at first. I would suggest rephrasing.
  • I rephrased it, take a look now. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Culture seems a bit incomplete. What about people other than Dominicans and nothing other than graffities?
  • For culture, the Dominican community is the dominant community within Washington Heights, and art is pretty noteworthy. If you're asking for the demographic makeup of the neighborhood in particular, the section above that is about demographics. Otherwise, I'm not sure there is anything to add that would make this more "complete". Perhaps it's the lack of text under the second-level header that isn't also under a third-level subheader, but I think Spirit did a good job covering all the major points. Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    The contents of the current section is noteworthy and should be present. My concern is that it doesn't mention other aspects of culture such as food, clubs, historical sites, etc. It also doesn't discuss the cultural impact other communities such as say Cubans or Puerto Ricans may have, there also seems to be significant number of Jews. Demographics only provides population figures. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    Regarding historical sites, that is a good point, though that's already covered in "Points of interest". However, I worry that if we were to include lists of restaurants, clubs, etc. (besides those that are particularly notable), it could become a list of trivia that could fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'll look into adding a little about other cultural impacts. Epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    I agree with Epicgenius on this, I think it's better to keep the "Culture" section to something that can actually be talked about at decent length. In an attempt to talk about community organizations in a previous version of the article I definitely ended up doing a list-style thing that isn't very encyclopedic. I mean even the art section as I have it is pushing it because there isn't a whole lot to talk about there. If I were to add something about Cuban / Puerto Rican / Jewish culture I don't know if it would make sense, I feel like that would be a better fit for a page like Jews in New York City or even Manhattan because it really isn't neighborhood-specific. The "Little Dominican Republic" though is definitely neighborhood specific and it leads into discussing the neighborhood as one of the earliest and most significant communities for the group, something that can't be said for any other ethnicity really. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

    Alright although I don't think it needs to be per se neighborhood specific, so I would still suggest adding something as long as the neighborhood is a part of it and that's mentioned in the sources, if possible. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Couldn't locate any other issues with these sections.

Comments (Points of interest)

• "Although it was initially contiguous with Fort Tryon Park (a condition for John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s donation of the Fort Tryon parkland)," could sound confusing for those who haven't read the later subsection on Fort Tyron Park. I would suggest rephrasing it to specify that the Fort Tyron was an addition to the Fort Washington Park.
  • I clarified the sentence. Fort Tryon wasn't an addition to Fort Washington - they were connected at one point, but Henry Hudson Parkway now separates the two parks and there is no connection between them. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• This is just a suggestion but the section appears rather ambiguous in terms of what is and can be included in it; the landmark and attractions could instead be moved under culture and the parks could have their own section instead of being a subsection under it.
  • I split the two sections, but I kept them as separate second-level sections. Generally, in other articles such as Morningside Heights, Manhattan, I generally included landmarks and geography as part of the same section, though I'm not sure how appropriate that would be here. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't have any opinion when it comes to the ordering of the sections so just tell me how you think it should be formatted and I'll put it that way. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

    The separation of the section removed the ambiguity. For the purpose of fulfilling the GA criteria, I don't think anything else is necessary in terms of sectioning. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments (Sections 7 to 12)

• Ref 266 should be replaced with a secondary source. It does not directy verify that the newspaper has a focus on Washington Heights and Inwood in particular.
  • Done.
• Ref 268 should be replaced with a secondary source as well. The quote, "more than half of them in Washington Heights" is not directly supported by it.
  • I removed the quoted section. However, I could not find a secondary source that shows the number of newspaper boxes that distribute the paper. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I just got rid of it, it wasn't really relevant anyway. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• The health section should specify either in text or at least through a note that the statistics are from 2018.
  • This date is already in the beginning of the section (and several other places throughout the section). For example, As of 2018, preterm births... Could you clarify what changes are needed? Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    Ah sorry, all of the data is from a profile in 2018 but this isn't very clear in the section. I think a beginning sentence mentioning the profile may be better alternative. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments (Sections 13 to 17)

• If possible, the section on education could talk about Spanish literacy in the district.
  • I added a section on primary languages spoken in the area. I couldn't readily find info about Spanish literacy per se, however. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Literacy I highly doubt there would be statistics on. I'll add the more specific ACS data on speaking English / Spanish and also data on the percentage of students who are English as a Second Language. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Never mind the ACS data, I just added about English Language Learners, what do you think? The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Public primary and secondary schools are provided to New York City students by the New York City Department of Education." This might need an inline citation.
  • Looks like Epicgenius added this The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• The list under "Unzoned middle and middle/high schools" breaks off in the middle and becomes text and then becomes a list again. I would suggest including the less notable schools as a list of "other unzoned middle and middle/high schools" after the text. Alternatively, the text for the two schools could just be removed and they could be incorporated into the list.
  • In NYC, a specific distinction is made between zoned and unzoned schools; the former prioritize admissions for, or only take students from, the neighborhood while the latter do not. Are you asking if it's possible to combine the respective lists of zoned and unzoned schools? Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Never mind this point then. Perhaps the section could briefly mention the distinction between the two types of school? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Tayi Arajakate, I have done this. Sorry for the delay, I have things to attend to in real life, and I was working on other articles. Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

    Don't worry I have Internet again, you can chill. Thanks so much for taking care of everything! :] The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• The section called religious institutions is just two lists, if possible it could expanded to cover the contemporary state of religion in the neighbourhood in general. For example if there are statistics available on religious denominations in the neighborhood, then they should be mentioned.
  • Yep it definitely doesn't look too good in current form, I'll do a rewrite to put it more in style of the Harlem, Morningside Heights, and Sunset Park pages which don't have lists per se but list some examples as part of broader descriptions. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• No issues found regarding transportation.
• Ref 434 is a blog and should be replaced.
  • Done.

General comments

• The article uses a lot of relative time references, in particular the terms "today" or "now". I would recommend replacing them with precise date or removing them by rephrasing their respective sentences.
  • Done.
• There are three New York Post (RSP entry) references in the article which I would recommend replacing, particularly the one cited for decrease in the rate of crime.
  • Removed.
• There is an over-reliance on primary source in the latter sections of the article. Consider using secondary sources more.
  • I have done so where possible, but it is hard to use secondary sources in some places, especially with regard to the data that is collected by the city. However, for education, religion, etc. I'll try to find secondary sources, as some of these exist. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What do you mean exactly? Like which sections? The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

    Fire safety onwards there was a heavy reliance on primary sources from when I checked. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Overall assessment

1. Comprehension: The article is generally well written.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is largely clear, concise and understandable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	There are manual of style issues. (Resolved)	Pass

2. Verifiability: Some issues related to verifiability exist.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all lines in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are some problems with the sources used, see comments above. (Resolved)	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research or synthesis was found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violation or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article has a broad coverage of all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article remains on topic without any unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article is complaint with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing edit warring or content disputes exist.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images used are marked with their appropriate copyright statuses.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use and captions are good.	Pass

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.