Talk:Brooklyn Botanic Garden/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 17:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm picking this review up. I'll be making minor copyedits as I go, so please review those and revert any you disagree with. I'll ping you once I have a completed review. grungaloo (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again {u|Epicgenius}}, I'm finished my review. Just some prose things mainly which you're already addressing! No other issues. The images are good, the logo is good too since it's low res. No plagiarism found, no sign of OR/SYN, things are cited appropriately, and all my ref spot checks are good. grungaloo (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes . This is a really well written article. No further issues from me. Congrats on the GA! grungaloo (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

General comments, not required for GA

 * The amount of references could probably be slimmer. For instance, has 3 inline references for it. This is a pretty uncontroversial statement, one good ref would probably be enough.
 * I've tried to remedy this by combining references in several locations. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some places call it "the Brooklyn Botanic Garden/BBG" and others just "Brooklyn Botanic Garden/BBG" with "the". I'd suggest making this consistent.
 * I have removed "the" for consistency, except where the name refers to something else, e.g. "The Brooklyn Botanic Garden Library". Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The history section is quite detailed and dives into a lot of facts. Based on it's length, you could consider splitting it off into its own article and summarizing it here.
 * In my opinion, this is not necessary quite yet (it only makes up about 40% of this article's prose size or about 3,500 words). At this juncture, I feel like splitting the page would force readers to divide their attention between two pages. However, I may consider this in the future, especially if BBG undergoes additional modifications. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

 * Yearly visitor number in the infobox is from 2011 and disagrees with the lead which says "over 800,000". I'd update with the more recent number, but also specify what year the info is from both in the infobox and in the lead so people know its not a recent number.
 * I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Same with species count - Infobox say 12,000 but lead say 14,000. Probably don't need to include the year here though.
 * I have done this as well. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

History
Refs 3,4,5,8,14,25,34,85,110,170,219 all good
 * - Other area conversions are acre to hectare, recommend making this consistent.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - This is a bit confusing, was the total land available 52 acres and the gardens occupied most of that? As it stands its not exactly clear why the 52 acres is a space constraint.
 * It seems I meant to write something else; my bad. What I meant to write was that BBG could not expand beyond 52 acres because of space constraints, as it was bounded by other structures (the Brooklyn Museum, Mount Prospect Park, and the Empire Boulevard fire building) on all sides. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Location and geography
Refs 227,229,234 all good

Specialty gardens and collections
Refs 113,139,91,257,271,275,59 good
 * - Does this mean there are 42 total Asian and cultivated species in existence, or that the 200 trees represent 42 different species? If it's the second, maybe rewrite as "...200 cherry trees, representing 42 different Asian an cultivated varieties...". This seems to be how it was written in the next paragraph too.
 * I meant the second. I rewrote this as "representing 42 Asian species". Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - I would run these two sentences together, and just say that the species flowed at different times. Alternatively you can just drop the second sentence I think.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - I think you can drop this, there's nothing to indicate that it wouldn't exist so probably no need to specify that it does in fact still exist.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - I'd drop this or run it into the previous sentence. It sounds weird out on it's own.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Why does this have 2 reference attached to it? Is it just validating that the shrine exists? I'd drop these refs since 257 at the end of the sentence seems to cover it.
 * I have removed the ref. It was meant to verify the fact that the shrine was rebuilt. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Maybe a quick addition of why it needed to be restored? It's mentioned earlier, but a quick "after being closed throughout the war" would help.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - I'd move this after or as part of the sentence saying the garden was design for those with vision impairments. It feels out of place where it is now.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - What is GAP? Could you add a quick description here?
 * Done (I forgot to add what the acronym stood for) Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Herbs typically have flavours themselves, but saying they're "used to create flavors" seems to imply they're being used for artificial flavours maybe? I'd suggest a reword to "including those used in cooking" or something like that.
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Structures
Refs 232,175,326 good
 * - This looks to actually be based on a quote from a brochure for the conservatory. I don't thinks this should be in wikivoice since the quote is from promotional material and doesn't mean it will be an /actual/ desert, just that it will be /like/ an actual desert. I'd put this in quotation marks.
 * I have rephrased this to "and is designed to resemble a desert environment". I hope that works. Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Programs
Refs 15,337 good
 * General note here, WP:NOTADVERT I'd try to make sure as much as possible that you use third party sources to avoid this being construed as promotional. I think it meets NPOV, so it's good for GA, but if you intend to take this to FA later I'd suggest removing the few BBG website sources from this section.
 * Yeah, I can see how this is an issue. I tried to find third-party sources for basically everything that I could. Unfortunately, third-party sourcing is really sparse for some topics (e.g. the Brooklyn Botanic Garden Library really doesn't have any in-depth coverage at all outside its own website). Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Publications
Ref 357, 362 good

Former Properties

 * - there's a few in this section, but same as above should consistently convert to ha
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Memberhsip

 * Same comment as programs, again no change needed now, but if FA is your goal then I'd remove BBG sources or be careful how they're used.
 * That is a fair point. Thanks for the review @Grungaloo. Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)