Talk:Central Park Conservancy

Central Park Conservancy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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: August 2, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization 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.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Central Park Conservancy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 August 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a $100-million donation to the Central Park Conservancy in 2012 was the largest ever to New York City's park system at the time?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Central Park Conservancy.

Wikipedia

why is this linked to Central Park?

It would seem there should be enough material for it to be a separate, but linked entry

I agree. Binarybits (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Park Conservancy. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115202403/http://www.elizabethbarlowrogers.com:80/lecture/ to http://www.elizabethbarlowrogers.com/lecture/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Central Park Conservancy has invested more than $800 million toward the restoration and enhancement of New York City's Central Park? Source: Crain's New York
- ALT1:... that a $100-million donation to the Central Park Conservancy in 2012 was the largest ever to New York City's park system at the time? Source: NY Times

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mikhailovsky Garden: Rossi Bridge (2/3)
Comment:

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

New enough (listed as GA August 2nd, submitted the same day)
Not been in ITN or DYK before
Is (way more than) long enough
Has abundant citations
Both hooks checked for appropriate citations, and in-line cited in article
The vast majority of references are on-line, in English
No dispute templates. There is a redlink to The American Institute for Conservation, but that's probably OK.
Article mentions a large number of living people, but I don't see any WP:BLP issues.
Earwig calls out a number of issues. Some of them are bloggy-looking things that may well have copied from us. One of the callouts is the NY Times, who certainly didn't copy from us; in that case, it's mostly just a few quotes, which deserve better attribution. There's also some from The Post, which I'm going to be generous and classify as a newspaper rather than a bloggy-looking thing, and we've got some direct copies from there. These should all be investigated deeper.
No problems with WP:NPOV
For amusement value only: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Park Conservancy
The hooks are correctly formatted, interesting, accurate, cited, and neutral.
There's no image associated with this entry.

I'll leave the hook and image reviews to somebody else.

Could another person look at the hook and image reviews? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks RoySmith for doing the first part of the review. I will fix the copyvio concerns, but it looks like the biggest violations are from forums that seem to have reverse copied from the Wikipedia page. epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got more time now, so I've done the remaining items (added to the list above). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thanks. I put the appropriate attribution to the quotes where possible. In the case of the YouTube/blog links, I think they copied from us, rather than the other way around. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the attribution of the NY Times quote. Looks good to go now. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Duke Ellington Circle jeh.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]