Talk:Stuyvesant Farm

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Historical Maps

The Manatus map at the full extent makes Bowery No. 1 difficult to find. Zooming into the map with a focus on the current lower Manhattan makes it easier to find, shown below as Option B:

Historical Maps of Bowery No. 1
Option A Option B Option C
Bowery No. 1 is marked on the Manatus map of 1639 under Willem Kieft.

{{{annotations}}}

Bowery No. 1, marked on the Manatus map of 1639 under Willem Kieft next to No. 16.

{{{annotations}}}

Bowery No. 1, marked on the Manatus map of 1639 under Willem Kieft next to No. 16.

I propose updating the article to show Option B. Comments? - DutchTreat (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Option C with a tigher crop/zoom into the farm and creek - DutchTreat (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, these are great. I like Option C best, as it focuses on the manor house and creek, while still showing the relationship to Fort Amsterdam.--Pharos (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am also enjoying the detail available in Option C. I'll replace the current map with this one. - DutchTreat (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created a cropped image on Commons due to rendering issues with the {{Annotated image}}:
Option D

Bowery No. 1, marked on the Manatus map of 1639 under Willem Kieft next to No. 16. (North on right, Fort Amsterdam on left)

Option E
1
  
Manatus map of 1639 under Willem Kieft (North to right)
1
Bowery No. 1
  Fort Amsterdam

- DutchTreat (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated with Option E - DutchTreat (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stuyvesant Farm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 14:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for thorough review! The fine folks at WikimediaNYC and I have taken care of nearly everything above. The last unanswered issue is with the font size in the Overlay image which I do not know how to address. It does look slightly bigger to me as well. --Wil540 art (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally it can be addressed, but no reason not to promote, which I will now do. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 (talk22:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Wil540 art (talk), Pharos (talk), Rhododendrites (talk), and DutchTreat (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 23:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is long enough and new enough. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. QPQ needs to be done. Hook is interesting to the average reader. A truly excellent article! Thriley (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratzer map with inset

Created a map with the Stuyvesant Farm highlighted based on Ratzer's Plan of New York (1770). I propose this diagram replace the two annotated images from the same basemap. This one image has some usability benefits by reducing the screen space used in the article and makes zooming to a higher resolution easier.

Insert of "The Plan of the City of New York in North America" map made by British military officer Bernard Ratzer, surveyed in the years 1766 & 1767, printed in 1770.

Comments welcome. - DutchTreat (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Two annotated images of Ratzer map replaced with one merged view. - DutchTreat (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harv error

There's an error with what is currently footnote 27 ( Burrows & Wallace 1999, p. 50); that footnote uses sfn formatting but there isn't a linked bibliography; also there isn't actually a Burrows & Wallace 1999 source listed, it appears to be 1998. Not having the source, I don't want to presume to correct it. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]