Jump to content

Talk:Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Within Prospect Park?

[edit]

The sidebar of this article describes the Garden as being "within Prospect Park". The body of the article contradicts this, saying it's within Mount Prospect Park, but actually that doesn't seem right to me either. Mount Prospect Park is 7.79 acres, but according to https://www.bbg.org/about/history the garden is 52 acres. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Prospect_Park says Mount Prospect Park "shares a parcel of land" with the Botanic Garden and other institutions but it's not clear to me in what sense this is true. Looking at https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/mount-prospect-park/map it seems like NYC Parks only considers the northwest corner to be Mount Prospect Park. (They describe it as "nestled between Brooklyn's [...] institutions, namely [...] Brooklyn Botanic Gardens".) The BBG history page describes the creation of the park as due to an act by the state legislature reserving 39 acres for it. Could we add a citation? Glasserc (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I decided to fix it myself. If you're using the BBL search tool from the NYC Department of Finance, this is all within borough 3 (Brooklyn) obviously, block 1183. The lot for Mount Prospect Park is lot 8. Lot 1 is the majority of the Botanic Garden. I believe lot 30 is the parking lot or maybe the visitor's center. Although all of these lots are listed as "owned" by NYC Parks, none clearly surrounds the other so I don't think it's fair to say it is "in" any park. Glasserc (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some GA-ish comments

[edit]

I was going to review this, and even started to, but to be honest, TL;DNR (Too Long; Did Not Review). I will leave some comments here, however. There's a lot of repetition. For example, the lead mentions structures in each of its three paragraphs. You mention "The Celebrity Path was created in 1985" under "1980s and 1990s", then again with "A Celebrity Path. added in 1985" under "Other gardens and landscape features". You've got several sentences about the Steinhardt Conservatory in "1980s and 1990s", then a whole section about it later on. Much the same with the Palm House. And again for the Cranford Rose Garden, which we're told in two different places was opened in 1928. I think this would benefit from coalescing all the information about a given section of the garden into one place rather than spreading it out and duplicating it throughout the article. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Roy. Yeah, it is kind of long, although that's because it's had a fairly long history. I've tried to reduce the repetition, although I felt some repetition was necessary because of its length. Since the dates are already given in the history section, I just removed them from the individual "Specialty gardens and collections" sections. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Bruxton talk 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A building at Brooklyn Botanic Garden
A building at Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 17:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Brooklyn Botanic Garden; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Let's see here. Article checks out in terms of presentability and qualification.(Was promoted to Good Article 2 days before the nom) Earwig doesn't return anything notable, and I can't find any image licensing issue. I like the first hook best; I'm assuming good faith on the source, since I don't have access to it, but it's definitely interesting. Everything checks out here. Generalissima (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Generalissima: . I am able to access the source to confirm ALT0. Bruxton (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]