Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'll take this on to review as part of the April–May 2020 backlog drive. I have edited the article, but not significantly, I added a wikilink and unsuccessfully attempted to fix a referencing problem a while back. Mujinga (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copyvio[edit]

• Earwig gives 0% copyvio, will try it again later just to check on that. Still giving 0%, in any case didn't see any copyvio.

Images[edit]

• All good, best practice would be to add an "alt" for each image.
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

• Lead is pretty good, maybe could be expanded a bit so as to have para1 about the power station and its construction, para2 later life and redevelopment. What could be added would be something on its construction and something on the prior failed redevelopment plans (ie Gowanus Village)

• Added a bit to the lead. Happy to have others tweak it as needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • great Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Batcave shouldn't be bolded since Batcave goes elsewhere

• Batcave (disambiguation) does point here, which I think satisfies the bolding requirements, but I'm content to defer to others on the finer points of MOS if it's an issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • i got around to checking MOS:BOLDSYN which says "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold" so i would say it's ambiguous about the redirect, thus fine as it is Mujinga (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A recent edit renamed the "Powerhouse Workshop" section to "Powerhouse Arts" so the redirect is borked and for consistency it's best to have one or the other

• I restored the old version. Powerhouse Arts is the organization that owns it. This is not their only project. The sources we cite call this particular venture the Powerhouse Workshop, so that seems most appropriate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • okee Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Several sources refer to the location as 153 Second Street and that's what the OSM points to, so that would be good to include.

•  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• built in 1901–1904 for me this would read better something like "built between 1901 and 1904"

•  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early history and construction[edit]

• Maps from 1886 show the site had been home to Nassau Sulfur Works and Smith and Shaw Mattress Materials and Paper Stock. - this sentence is a bit hard to parse, could also add a wl to Sanborn Maps, i would suggest "Sanborn Maps from 1886 show previous occupiers of the locaiton to have been the Nassau Sulfur Works and the Smith and Shaw Mattress Materials and Paper Stock factory.
  •  Done epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • hi epicgenius, cool you are commenting here! you don't feel it needs a word like factory at the end of the sentence? fine if not. Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• greater demand - increased demand?
  •  Done
• I am a British English speaker by the way, so please point out if I am querying US English and we can find the best solution. You could also mark the article as 'Use American English'
• active Gowanus Canal - the sources indicate the Gowanus Canal was an industrial hub, so a sentence or two about that would be good here for context
  • I added a few words for context. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • great! Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Third Avenue and First Street the 1910 source says Third and Second, although other sources do say Third and First
  • This building occupies a whole block with frontage on both. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thomas E. Murray can be wikilinked
  •  Done
• since the 1910 source is quite large and page numbers are used on other sources, they would be useful on that too (optional improvement)
  • Will add these as I come across them... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 by 12 by 24 inches (76 by 305 by 610 mm) i see this is coming from the source page114 but it's a bit hard to understand. are those measurements all in inches/mm? maybe tiles instead of tile
  • Page 118 gives this verbatim, actually (one of the reasons for the PD template in the ref). Rp added. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • apologies for saying 114 instead of 118. to clarify what i meant, i know it comes from the source, what i am saying that it reads a bit strangely to me, since in the previous sentence there's "186 feet 9 inches" so then when it says "3 by 12 by 24 inches" i read "3 feet by 12 feet by 24 inches" and it becomes a bit confusing. also rooms is filled might bread better "rooms was filled" Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "was" as above. As for the rest, to me this is connected to the discussion of whether to add more details about the operation of the power station. It just feels a little too detailed. When I think about Wikipedia articles about buildings, I think more about their importance, historical significance, etc. not their precise architectural specifications. IMO it may be a little overdetailed when it comes to construction, with all of these figures... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Romanesque Revival - landmarks says facades that blend Classical and Romanesque Revival-style features
  •  Done and removed the rp, since it's touched on in a few places there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• there's a lot here on construction, which is great, i think the article also needs a few sentences to explain of how the plant operated, since that wasn't initially clear to me. what i mean is something like the coal is brought by water, loaded directly into the building, burnt to power the engines which drive the dynamos and then also how the feeder cables worked etc etc landmarks has a section about it on page14, which also mentions an adjacent block, that's also interesting. then this section could possibly be split into construction / operation.
  • I have mixed feelings about this. When I started getting into the details from that Murray book, some parts of the article started to feel overly detailed given how much of those details are present only in one of the sources. When I got to the function part of it, and started trying to summarize its operation, I realized that I was getting lost in details (and worse, details I wasn't confident I understood, and which would, I felt, ultimately detract from the readability of the article). Murray indeed was very interested in the specifics of how this place was built and how it operated, but I think for a Wikipedia article, factoring in the sourcing broadly available, I don't love the idea of getting much into it beyond what's also in other sources. If we were headed for FAC, I know it would probably be necessary, but IMO it's on the comprehensive side of the "broad vs. comprehensive" distinction for GACR/FACR. Curious what epicgenius thinks about this, having also been through these sources recently. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks for the response, interested to hear what epicgenius thinks here. for my feeling since there is quite a lot of detail on construction, the article also needs at least a sentence or two on how the power was generated and sent off, for balance Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this can indeed be split into a "design" section, like Cunard Building (New York City)#Description or 26 Broadway#Description. epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Responded to this above (sort of). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• the boiler house was demolished - i got a bit stuck here trying to work out if this was a separate building or not. it seems clear from the sources that it was one huge building with the boiler section and the engines section, so maybe that can be made clearer above (would also be good to know why only that bit was demolished, if it is possible to say)
  • Yeah, it seems there were two connected structures. The boiler house was taller, and was destroyed. I don't know for what reasons, though. I tweaked the wording to make explicit what the "boiler house" refers to. This image helps to visualize it. It's not a real photo but the plan for what the current owners will do with it. The lighter brick building is what's currently there, and the taller bit, which they point out is on the footprint of the former boiler room, is, well, where the boiler house was. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • cool thanks, i have to say the new building looks a bit underwhelming Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• there is currently a paragraph about what happened after decommissioning, but i think a bit more can be said, i found this interesting at landmarks page 15: In December 1972 the Transit Authority transferred ownership of the site to New York City, which sold the property in 1975. For several decades, the BRT Engine House was used as a “paper recycling center." - this fills in the gap a bit. did the city sell it to developers?
  • uggg i saw the comment left on the talkpage about sources for this being hard to find...
    • Yeah. I even posted to Reddit about this, without luck. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • i saw that thread on my researches! strange that there isn't more on it. however, for me the landmarks source is perfectly reputable so i would be fine with you re-adding the paper mill info Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Yeah, maybe the problem was that Rhododendrites posted to r/brooklyn, a sub that is not too active compared to the larger r/nyc. epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squatter community[edit]

• the present sources also mention a bicycle repair shop and punk gigs.
  • Was another place where I worried about getting too detailed (there were a lot of other things the squatters did that came up in various sources). Tried to keep it relatively simple. For example, I started to list a bunch of the bands said to have played there, but none of them have articles (a couple people in notable bands are mentioned though). I can add some if you think it's a big mistake not to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• generally the sources feel a bit thin in this section, although from looking around I can see there isn't much, also in academic papers, to add. i did find a small mention in an architectural digest article. there's also a narratively article but on a quick look i am not sure if narratively has an editorial collective or not.
  • Nice. Can't believe I didn't find those before. Added them, with some detail. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• and even ran - i don't think "even" is needed
  •  Done epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Batcave" per MOS:SINGLE I'd say single apostrophes would be better
  • Well, this is not a Plant cultivar or simple gloss. Rhododendrites might think differently though. epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that doesn't seem right to me. If it were a quote in a quote or one of those other cases, I'd agree, but this seems like a good ol' double. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • on a re-read and looking at note h there then i agree you were right to begin with Mujinga (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• property owners - Globes says they bought properties in 2002 and 2004, so it would be worth adding something like they bought the Batcave in the 2000s.
  •  Done epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Underground arts and urban exploration[edit]

• This section is good and informative but I am starting to feel that either here or maybe in the next section there needs to be broader coverage, since I am seeing references in the sources to a superfund development area and gentrification. Also more could be said about the developers' specific plans.
  • The superfund site is the canal. I don't think any of the sources really talk about it apart from it just being nearby IIRC. I did track down the environmental remediation documentation a few days ago and added it to the last section. As for additional plans of the developer, honestly I do feel like there's a decent balance in there without getting crystal-bally and without relying too much on primary sources. It seems like in some regards they're still making up their mind about what they're going to do while construction and remediation has been going on (that's my own take, though). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I was getting at was for the coverage to be broad, we need to know a bit more about the context in which the building finds itself, since it seems to be the last big building to be developed in a gentrifying area. For the developer plans, sorry i wasn't clear i meant more on the plans of the previous developers, i agree we should be predicting or press releasing future stuff Mujinga (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plans of the previous developers were pretty sparse. Not nearly as well publicized as the Powerhouse Workshop. It's mentioned in passing in a couple places. I don't know that there's much more we could say without searching for primary documents filed with the city, for example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Powerhouse Workshop[edit]

• Powerhouse Workshop is planned to open in 2021 - both sources say 2020, no doubt it has been delayed so maybe there's a new source
  • Possible, but I haven't seen any, and I suspect nobody's in a rush to try to predict when anything will be back to normal at this point :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • oh yes of course the plans must be frozen now. so then maybe better removed? or change 2021 to 2020, although it seems unlikely it will happen this year Mujinga (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • great! Mujinga (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mujinga: I have found a ref for a 2021 opening. epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• current 3rd para could be joined to 2nd, and current 5th joined to 4th
  •  Done the first part. Not sure about the second, since landmarks is different than decontamination, but the 5th (current 4th) paragraph is a single-sentence paragraph. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

• Referencing style is great, if you don't mind i will archive the links so as to be able to check the "Five Gowanus buildings made landmarks ahead of rezoning ref (otherwise blocked in my zone). Some refs are a bit thin but then backed up by other refs so not seeing a problem.

Further reading[edit]

• Strictly speaking this text is cited in the article so doesn't need to be here, presumably it's here as a detailed resource?
  • Going along with what I wrote above about the functioning of the plant, I felt like this was a really good resource for someone who wanted to really dig into the stuff that seems too detailed for the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • understood Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

• Fine

Comments[edit]

Hi @Rhododendrites:, this article is overall in pretty good nick, I just have slight concerns about broadness of scope and the odd occasional phrasing issue. I think the lead needs some work, but we can come to that last. I would say here though (just so I don't forget) that the lead could do with stating the location and the size of the terrain. Also for me an infobox would be good, but obviously that's not a pass/fail issue. Putting the article on hold. Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: Ok, thanks for this review. I think we've either acted upon or responded to all of the above at this point. Happy to continue some of the specific conversations as you see fit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Epicgenius: and @Rhododendrites:, thanks for the improvements. I've made some replies and also made some comments on the lead, which I was leaving until last. It's mostly tweaking, I think the article doesn't need much now to pass, but it would benefit from a couple of extra sentences about both the operation of the power station and its present situation in a gentrifying area, just so a reader coming in with no local knowledge would get a broad overview. Also as a sidenote I was playing some Frankie Bones records yesterday and was happily surprised to see the track title "Gowanus Decay" pop up! Mujinga (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga and Epicgenius: Acted on or responded to the rest above, I think. It seems like the main thing still to be resolved is spread out over a couple points above, so I'll bring it down here since it cuts across multiple sections: the level of detail in the construction and/or operation of the power station. Two points I want to make: (1) Reading the list of measurements/specs in the construction section strikes me as a lot of detail, and I can understand, with all that detail there, why you would say that it's disproportionate to the coverage of the operation of the plant (since both primarily come from the same source, which provides a technical overview of both). If we were to treat them as equivalent, as they are equivalently covered by that old source, my argument would be for reducing the level of detail in the construction before starting to dive into the technical operation of the plant. That said... (2) the construction is simply more relevant to the topic, which is the building. The building has played multiple roles in the power system, was a party venue, a squat, and now a landmark and a nonprofit arts space -- the building itself (and thus its construction) is at least somewhat relevant to all of that, but the technical operation of the movement and production of electricity that hasn't happened in the building in more than 40 years, is not. So I'm still conflicted (which is not to say immovable :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, that makes sense, thanks. I think we can have a section on the building's design, which is to say its actual architecture, but have a description of the plant's operation in "Early history and construction". Or we can have a new "Design" section which covers both the plant's architecture and the design process of the structure. I don't really mind any of the alternatives, just throwing some ideas out. epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, yes i agree with your analysis of the situation @Rhododendrites:, it is just a question of broadness of coverage now and the depth of coverage on the construction does leave me wanting a bit more on function. I would be satisfied with a couple of sentences, nothing massive. @Epicgenius: has provided some examples above of other GA NY buildings and also some ideas on structure. What do you think about it? Mujinga (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couple sentences as it might be, I'm still not sure what this would look like. That speaks more to my lack of blocks of time to spend diving into an editing problem than anything else, and as off-wiki commitments seem to be piling up, I'm not sure I'll be able to address it in the next week... :/ Will update here when I have a better sense of that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel a time pressure from me, I'm sure we all want this to pass but I don't mind waiting a bit since real life should always come first. Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: I think part of why this edit seemed like it would be a ton of work is because of how dense that older power plants book is. Going through some of that text reminded me of this scene in Patriot (which was great, incidentally). However, relying mainly on the landmarks document made it quite a bit easier. I've gone ahead and added a paragraph summarizing the basic operation of the plant as per above. Sorry for the delay. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the girdle jerry :) I gave it another read through and I think this paragraph really helps. That was my last remaining concern so happy to pass this as a good article, nice working with you both. Mujinga (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]