Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Manhattan/1

Manhattan

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Manhattan/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Keep consensus. See discussion below for more information Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I came across this article through the GAR request template added a year ago by . My first thoughts was that it was a pretty good article, in fact I still think it is a pretty good article. However there are major issues with the lead. I detailed these thoughts on the talk page before opening the reassessment (Talk:Manhattan). To clarify, part of the Good Article criteria is that the article complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Unfortunately this one does not meet the lead requirement as it does not summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If we divide the articles body up by percentage we have roughly. Now the lead does not have to match this exactly, but when one sentence (~4% of the lead) covers the history the appropriate weight is wrong. Geography is also under represented. By comparison over 25% of the lead revolves around the economy. Outside the infobox in some cases there is no information on geology, climate, government or infrastructure.
 * Entymology       1%
 * History         16%
 * Geography       22%
 * Landscape        9%
 * Economy         11%
 * Education        4%
 * Culture          6%
 * Sport            5%
 * Government       8%
 * Housing          2%
 * Industry        16&

There is also a lot of cites in the lead, a red flag for unique information added that is not in the body. Of these 28 are not repeated in the body.

Another issue is the WP:Puffery. Sentences like Manhattan is often described as the cultural, financial, media, and entertainment capital of the world and New York City has been called both the most economically powerful city and the leading financial center of the world don't really belong in the lead as written. I have come across worse in New York articles and would probably overlook this if it wasn't rated a Good Article. It would probably be alright if this was mentioned in the actual body of the article by expanding on these descriptions. You could argue that articles from The New York Times describing New York as the foo capital of the world are biased, but seeing as we use described it is not so bad.

There may be other issues, but to my mind the major issue is the lead and if that is sorted I will be happy. However, if other editors want to bring up additional issues then they are welcome.

Note: Usually I conduct these reviews as individual assessments, but I have conflicted with a major editor of this article in the past, so thought it best to keep this as a community review. AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as Good Article. I agree that we could buff up the History section some more. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with article's GA status. It's on par with other city GA articles, even though technically Manhattan is a borough of NYC. Castncoot (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as Good Article. I think that may be applying Featured article standards this GA. While not perfect, I think that the article is well-written, well-cited, has broad coverage, is NPOV, is stable, and has images (if anything, too many images). Those are the criteria for a GA and I believe that it easily passes. —hike395 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am definitely applying the Good Article criteria. I was very careful to link this above, but will do so again.
 * Criteria 1b says complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation (bolding mine)
 * WP:LEAD says summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight
 * My argument is that it does not follow WP:LEAD and therefore does not meet the Good Article Criteria 1b. Remember this is not a !vote, so it has to be shown that it currently does meet this criteria, or fixed so that it does. AIRcorn (talk)
 * It is not a !vote, but there has to be consensus to change a longstanding status, like with any other issue in Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've buffed up the historical content in the lead and added an important geographical feature. I would like to emphasize this time, however, that Manhattan is not a city but rather the core borough of NYC, and there is only a limited amount of geographical discussion that can take place in the lead about a 22+ square mile subset of any city. The human element of the borough is predominant. Castncoot (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the only substantial problem is the lead, it would be pretty easy to sort it out. However, there are also a bunch of unsourced sentences and paragraphs, which makes me hesitant to !vote "Keep". I like what Castncoot has done so far, but some more improvement is needed to the prose, especially regarding the sourcing. Complicating the matter, the "unsourced" sections I'm referring to are sentences like Some of the best known New York City public high schools are located in Manhattan, including Beacon High School, Stuyvesant High School, Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School, High School of Fashion Industries, Eleanor Roosevelt High School, NYC Lab School, Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics, Hunter College High School, and High School for Math, Science and Engineering at City College. Bard High School Early College, a hybrid school created by Bard College, serves students from around the city. Obviously if you searched all these high schools you'd know they are in Manhattan, but then we run the risk of WP:CITEKILL. epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Epicgenius, I like what you have done with trimming some of the outdated material from the article so far. If you could please also do the same with fixing as per what you've described just above with the Education section (and/or other sections), that would also be appreciated. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: Education: I don't think it's necessary to provide sources to support that these schools are in Manhattan; the objectionable part is "best known". That could easily be corrected by using "Some of the notable New York City public high schools …" because they are notable as they have Wikipedia articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think all of the issues with the lead have been fixed sufficiently. Some of the outdated material may have to be trimmed as well, but it is well-sourced. epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delist until or unless all of the above-noted necessary changes are made, in order to comply with WP:GACR. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the article complies; if there's a disagreement, let's address it. Castncoot (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the basis for the GAR, namely does the LEAD meet GA criterion. I am coming to it post any changes  made. I think the history paragraph that has been added adequately addresses that concern. As for the puffery, I think the two phrases of concern are Manhattan is often described as the cultural, financial, media, and entertainment capital of the world and New York City has been called both the most economically powerful city and the leading financial center of the world. For the cultural, etc while there are five RS most of them basically seem to be New York sources or people calling New York that. I think perhaps with some different sourcing this phrase could be saved and does provide important context. For the comment about being called the most economically powerful I don't think the LEAD really loses anything if that close is removed. Ideally those are both fixed but their mere presence wouldn't be enough to remove GA status. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, at least one of the sources does quote Manhattan specifically and not just New York. The remainder of the sources are still valid because the article makes clear that Manhattan is the multi-dimensional core of NYC. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that there has been no comments in 4 weeks and my status as UNINVOLVED per the Guidelines for community reassessment discussion (as I've only participated in the GAR review process and did not nominate it for GAR) I am judging consensus to be keep. Because I did weigh in on the topic, despite this action being OK by the guidelines, I wish to give other editors a chance to either further discuss the article or disagree with my reading of consensus before I formally close it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)