Talk:Mill Basin, Brooklyn

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mill Basin, Brooklyn. 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/20071223211345/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bridges/mill.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bridges/mill.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mill Basin, Brooklyn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 02:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'm going to print this out and do a hard-copy edit, hopefully during slow moments during my work as an election inspector tomorrow. I should be back with some comments in a few days. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Case: Thanks for taking this up. Has there any progress with the review? epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have finished reviewing a hard copy and I'm going to be doing the light copy edit (no substantial changes) tonight, then posting my thoughts. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK ... now that my copyedit is done and I've recovered from all the snow shoveling I had to do today, my review. TL;DR: on hold.

First, what I like about it:

• It is a real joy to review a GA nom where I did not need to flag anything as uncited. That has been properly attended to here.
• It has clearly been well-researched. What each section says it will deliver, it pretty much delivers.
• Other than some of the wordier portions I tightened up, there are really no serious issues with the writing. Spelling and grammar weren't a problem (Usage ... well, I think we could find a better word than "opulent" to describe the large houses in the neighborhood, so I went with "luxurious". But of course I'm open to other options).

Now, where I see improvements needing to be made ...

The main problem with this article is that it is not as complete as I think it could be. It's about an urban neighborhood; I have thus taken the liberty of adding it to the worklist of the urban studies and planning project.

• The intro is relatively skimpy in relation to the article. It reads like it was the original stub, not really expanded to reflect the article's expansion.

• Also, could we do better than that with the lead image? Jim is a friend of mine, but I think even he would agree that a picture from the bridge doesn't tell us much. Unfortunately the Commons category, which I also added a link to, doesn't really have many better options. We should either look on the Flickr CC streams or, since we both live in the Greater New York area (you, I think, closer to Mill Basin than me) take our own pictures. Something of the commercial center perhaps, the sort of image we usually have in the lead.

• In this vein too, I think we could avail ourselves of {{infobox settlement}}, which is used in a couple of other articles on neighborhoods in Brooklyn (to say nothing of so many other places) ... see Greenpoint, Park Slope and Red Hook, for starters. It would be a great place to put a lot of the back-of-the-baseball-card stuff that people look for when they just want the one or two facts ... how big, how many people, ZIP Code etc., so they don't have to search through the whole article.

• The current version of the infobox also allows us, at long last, to embed a scalable location map, which is certainly helpful in showing us where in Brooklyn Mill Basin is. But ... it would be nice if we had an actual map we could put in the article, too. Something like this is immensely helpful when you read about the neighborhood's geography and have to try to envision what it looks like based purely on that. Which brings us to ...

• ... the "geography" section. As written, it's more like "historical geography" since it tells me how the neighborhood's geography was different in the past. Frankly, a lot of that that isn't redundant to the history section (the strongest part of the article) could and should be folded into that section. What we should instead have under geography is a description of the neighborhood as it is now, something a reader who was looking at a map at the same time can easily follow—boundaries on all sides, the street pattern (easy to describe but different from what one usually sees in New York City), the land use (mostly residential but with a few large commercial development in addition to the former industrial areas noted in the article), topography (not much to write here except that it's pretty level, I would bet). Something like this, with some numbers (like total area) and descriptive passages.

• In the "community" section, it would be nice to have some actual pictures of these high-end houses.

• Likewise, the recreation section could have a picture of, at least, one of the parks.

• In "education", I wonder, are there any private schools in Mill Basin?

• It might also be nice to have a "religion" section, with any houses of worship in the area.

OK, it's getting late and I'm sort of losing focus as I type. I have a list of some specific passages where I have questions; I'll get to that tomorrow. Daniel Case (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Case: Thanks for the review. I'll be improving this article in conjunction with the Bergen Beach, Brooklyn article, which is also undergoing a GA review.

• I have expanded the lead to include more history. I'll include more details on other sections, too.
• I'm going to add an infobox soon. Probably by Monday.
• For historical geography - I think it would be beneficial to have a summary of the historical geography in that section. I did add some notes about the zoning.
• Although I would like to take pictures of the neighborhood, it's extremely far from any public transportation that goes to Manhattan. I took pictures of the Brooklyn Navy Yard a few weeks ago, and even that was a stretch - and it's right across the river from Manhattan. I'll probably have to wait until it gets warmer before I attempt to go down there.
• I'll add info about the education and religion, too. epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. I have no problem with a geography section that explains, for lack of a better work, the territorial evolution of Mill Basin, as long as that section describes the neighborhood as it is now in some detail (More on this later). And thanks for adding the infobox! (Still, though, do we have some idea of the neighborhood's area since its boundaries are pretty hard and fast? Is this an answer we could perhaps find at the city planning commissions; website? Now to some specific passages where I had some issues that could not be addressed in a copy edit:

• "A contract to dredge the Mill Basin channel, along the southern and western sides of the island, was awarded in 1917." When I first read this I asked: By whom? To whom? Upon reviewing the source, I see it doesn't say directly that it was awarded by the city, but the Times seems to be strongly implying this. I did wonder, though, whether the state or federal government might have done it. Maybe some other source can be more specific (like the city's own records?)
• "After a controversy over the paving of the streets, the city ultimately dropped their requests for builders to pave these streets, instead forwarding the matter to the New York City Department of Highways." So the city forwarded the matter to itself? Judging from the source, I think we need to change the wording to better make clear that the city got tired of trying to make the builders themselves pave the streets and just decided to do it itself.
• "At the time, it was the most expensive residence ever listed for sale in Brooklyn." At that price, I'd love to know what beat it and where. But ... although it doesn't answer that question, the sourced Times article also notes that it never sold, and instead the sellers took it off the market and put it back on the market at almost half that price. We should too.
• The "Police and crime" section notes that Mill Basin is covered by the NYPD's 63rd Precinct. Earlier the article makes some mention of the 69th being associated with the area. So what happened to the six-nine? I assume it still exists since there are precincts in the city numbered higher than that. Perhaps some history of the NYPD, one that goes in great detail into mundane organizational matters like this, can tell us when and maybe why the precincts in this part of Brooklyn were renumbered.
• Lastly, it only occurs to me as I read all this that, unlike so many other articles about places, especially neighborhoods in New York City, there is no list of notable people from Mill Basin, either people born there or who lived there later in their lives. I really can't imagine that would be because no one notable has ever lived in Mill Basin, not when it's been around this long (granted, it has only been a residential area for the last 50+ years or so, but go look at Massapequa, which didn't really become a residential area until only slightly earlier—yet it has a list rather lengthy of baby-boom generation celebrities who grew up there.

Honestly, I am thinking as I read this, I think my talents could be better used helping you improve this than just reviewing it (For instance, I agree with you that it would be better to wait for spring again (especially after the last couple of days  ) to take more pictures of the neighborhood (assuming we can't find good ones on Flickr with an appropriate license, which I can't say because I haven't checked yet). I also think I could write the sort of geography section it needs; I've done this in so many other articles.

But if I do decide to do those things, if you are OK with that, I am too involved to be an impartial reviewer. And I think it would unfair, especially given how long it languished unreviewed, to let it be on hold for what might be quite a while again waiting for a second reviewer.

So ... what I am suggesting is that I sort of procedurally fail this now so we can work on it together, then renominate it later after all the suggested improvements have been made (But I do think it can be reassessed as B-class ... there has been plenty of work done it already to merit that). What do you think? Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd be fine if you wanted to help me, even though this requires that you procedurally fail the GA review. But given the length of the GA queue, I'd just renominate it immediately, since the issues you pointed out are relatively easy to fix. Now, for answers to your questions:

• A contract to dredge the Mill Basin channel... - I don't know who it was awarded to. However, the federal government was performing dredging within Jamaica Bay to make it a seaport. So maybe it was them. (Edit: It was. epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC))Reply
• After a controversy over the paving of the streets... - You're correct. The city wanted builders to pave the streets. But the city decided instead to pave the streets themselves.
• At the time, it was the most expensive residence ever listed for sale in Brooklyn. - I added "at the time" because this could become outdated. The entire sentence is technically true. But I'll add the note that it was sold for half that price.
• The 69th Precinct serves Canarsie, not Mill Basin, so I guess we can safely remove that.
• The notable residents and religion sections shouldn't be that hard. I'll probably be able to add these tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I forgot to mention that the NYC Planning Commission only creates Neighborhood Tabulation Areas. But the Georgetown-Marine Park-Bergen Beach-Mill Basin NTA is pretty large, so that's why it's not mentioned as a possible source for boundaries in the "Geography" section. epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I added a small "religion" and "notable people" section to start with. It's pretty meager, though, considering how small the neighborhood is. There are literally no churches and only a few synagogues on the peninsula. And the probability of having notable people in such a small area is, well, small. epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, good. Tell you what ... I will procedurally fail it so I can add the OSM map and write a geography section. Go ahead and renominate. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mill Basin, Brooklyn/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: hi! I've just wrapped up my first runthrough of the GA nomination. Please read over the comments below. Looking forward to seeing this one through with you. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Should the fact that the area is part of Brooklyn Community Board 18 be given such prominence? Perhaps move to last para of lead. @Ganesha811: Done. epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply Why "the area around Mill Basin" and not just "Mill Basin"? What level of area are census data available for? Census data is available per tabulation area, not necessarily per neighborhood. This ties into why Southeast Brooklyn is mentioned so much in the demographics section. By my findings, reliable sources don't exist for strictly Mill Basin. Not sure the drawbridge needs to be in lead - if retained, though, should be given own sentence. Removed. In 'Geography' if the meadows were at sea level wouldn't they be part of the sea? Maybe "lowland" or "low-lying"? Low-lying is correct. "A bulkhead was built along the shore..." - to clarify, Mill Island's shore? Or Long Island's? Rephrase. Yes, Mill Island's shore. Given that only one sentence is given to Elbertse in 'History', maybe his reference in the lead should be removed and replaced by an expanded reference to Jans Schenck, who built the first house on the island. Done. "It is said... pirate" - while certainly interesting, "it is said" is using weasel words - who says this? Fixed. In 'Community', "has been characterized as a suburban community with a...." - characterized by who? Fixed. The second paragraph and third paragraph of 'Community' shade into too much detail. Removed unsourced claim. These are mostly describing the housing stock of the neighborhood, which tend to be low-density mansions. Do we need the paragraph in 'Recreation' on Strike 10 lanes? As written, seems promotional. Trimmed that section. In "Transportation", the term "double leaf" should be defined or linked to - leaf is jargon, in context, and should be defined. Fixed with some rewording. The 'Religion' section, as it is so short, should be folded into 'Community' or 'Demographics.' I don't feel it belongs in either section, but let me think about it. epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply Overall, the prose is good - I did a quick copyedit. One thing of note - there are quite a few references to "the surrounding area" or "Southeast Brooklyn." While I understand this is relevant to Mill Basin, at times the article feels a little overstuffed with info not strictly about Mill Basin. I would recommend some editing of these areas. Issues addressed by nominator. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well sourced. Relies on Frederick Black's piece in some sections, but the breadth of other sources makes this a non-issue. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Mostly reliable news sources. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It's a detailed article but not unnecessarily. Each section is relevant and interesting. History is unusually detailed but not without purpose. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No non-neutrality detectable. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Most work done in November 2018. No edit wars. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass!

Pass! Nice article. Congrats to @Epicgenius: and all others who worked on it. I'll do the needful now and close up this review. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mill Basin, Brooklyn's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYPD 63rd Precinct":

• From Bergen Beach, Brooklyn: "NYPD – 63rd Precinct". www.nyc.gov. Archived from the original on May 25, 2017. Retrieved October 3, 2016.
• From Flatlands, Brooklyn: "NYPD – 63rd Precinct". www.nyc.gov. New York City Police Department. Retrieved October 3, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply