Talk:Grand Army Plaza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag of New York City
NYC Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] May be a copyvio=

This seems like a copyvio from http://www.prospectpark.org/hist/main.cfm?target=../dest/gran_hist . Please do not mark it as a copyvio for a week or so, as I have contacted Alex, the submitter of the disputed material, and hope to get a response from him. I really hope we don't have to rewrite all of it. Sigh. I just worked on this page. I hate copyvios. Sigh. JesseW 03:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've heard from Alex, and rewrote a paragraph that seemed to me to be too close for good taste, and I don't think there's a problem now. Good news. JesseW 01:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Older talk

Preserved old paragraph

In 1889, John H. Duncan — who was also the designer of Grant's Tomb in Manhattan — designed the Memorial Arch in a classical style similar to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. In 1896, Frederick MacMonnies, a well known New York sculptor, finished the three sculptural groupings on the Arch: the quadriga at the top of the arch which depicts the lady Columbia, an allegorical representation of the United States, riding in a chariot drawn by four horses accompanied by two winged Victory figures trumpeting her arrival, and two groups of soldiers, known as the Army Group and the Navy Group. The Arch was dedicated in 1892. The architectural firm of McKim, Mead and White formalized the entrance to the Park and transformed the Plaza into a more classical form.

Gosgood 03:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Observation on third paragraph

The third paragraph notes "In 1896, Frederick MacMonnies, a well known New York sculptor, finished the three sculptural groupings on the Arch..." I believe 1898 is the correct date. A contemporary source, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle for Sunday, December 4, 1898 reported that the Quadriga has "been put in position on the Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial Arch without ceremony and without the blare of trumpets." The article, appearing on page thirty one of that paper, goes on to note that the work was commissioned by the then City of Brooklyn Park Commissioner Frank Squire in 1894 for delivery in 1896, but that the artist required two additional years to complete the commission. The article notes that Mr. MacMonnies "sent to this country his master workman, who had supervised the casting, to put the quadriga in position. This work was completed a few days ago, and the group was turned over to the city." The illustration accompanying the article shows that the pedestals for the Army and Navy groups were still vacant on that date.

An earlier article from Monday, August 15, 1898, in the same publication notes the arrival of the Quadria from Mr. MacMonnies Paris studio, where the work had been modeled and cast.

Facsimile of the original papers may be obtained at The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Online 1841 - 1902, a website maintained by The Brooklyn Public Library.

The 1896 date does seemed to persist in a number of places: the Prospect Park Alliance maintains a history of Prospect Park; its article on Grand Army Plaza cites 1896 for the date when Mr. MacMonnies was "chosen" to adorn the arch with American Civil War themes. "The Complete Illustrated Guidebook to Prospect Park and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden" (2001 Silver Lining Books ISBN 0760722137) also uses the 1896 date. These are recent publications that do not cite their sources, however, while the Eagle is a contemporary source on contemporary events. --Gosgood 19:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


those photos are awesome. they were taken shortly after a very expensive cleaning of the statues. unfortunately, the statues are green again and will be green for a long time. I wonder if some of the photos on this article should show the greenness. Kingturtle 04:42, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Error

Where it says this-

In 1976 the Victory figure on the Quadriga on top of the Arch fell out of its chariot.

The chariot holds COLUMBIA, the winged victory figures flanking both ends are standing, so I believe this should be changed to- the Columbia figure on the Quadriga LostNYC 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Even the article diagrees with this "Winged Victory" nomenclature, See Grand Army Plaza#Statuary and fountain where Lady Columbia is identified with the figure in the chariot. See also original source material page 11 of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle Easter Supplement, April 18, 1897, former Brooklyn Parks Commissioner Frank Squire, who commissioned the work, describes the yet-to-be delivered Quadriga. See also The Quadriga In Its Place, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle article describing the delivery of the statue a year and eight months later. The misapplication has been in the article since August 2003 (Alex756; so familiar to article reviewers that no one thought to question it. Will change this. Gosgood 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Reduce linking in lead paragraph

I think the lead paragraph in the present (9 May 2007) version is overlinked, making it difficult to read without adding any value. Of the thirty links up to first subsection (Arch), but excluding the table of contents links, eight are red, pointing to yet-to-be-created articles. With about twenty seven percent of the links presently dangling, this conditions meets one guideline for overlinking given in the Manual of Style linking guidelines. (pt 2), which recommends an incidence of dangling links at ten percent or less. Of these eight links, I propose that:

  • Berkeley Place
  • Butler Place
  • Lincoln Place
  • Prospect Park West
  • Saint John’s Place

be delinked. I would anticipate that editors undertaking articles on these streets would face notability challenges. The discussion concerning the proposed deletion of Myrtle Avenue, last July, to my mind, set a useful gague as to what constitutes a notable Brooklyn street: spans a number of neighborhoods, known to very nearly all borough residents, significant commercial draw, or has significant historical attributes; I don't think a case can be made for these streets. On the other hand I think Union Street can serve as a basis for an article. Additionally, I would propose delinking Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial Arch and Baily Fountain. The Arch is a significant part of the article on the plaza itself; it would not gain strength, and would considerably weaken this article, if it were partitioned off into a separate topic. Insofar as the fountain is concerned, it seems best to discuss it in the context of the Plaza at large. To partition it off would produce a stubbish article on the fountain, and do nothing to strengthen the article on the plaza itself. This is a quiet talk page, so it would be decent to let the matter rest for a month or so, but after that, and in the absence of objection, I would like to delink the proposed articles. Take care. Gosgood 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent bit of study, and I agree 100% with it. Do it. The only redlink in the lead that possibly deserves to pend is the Union Street one. I'd like to see a bit more about the lower plaza statuary, but am not qualified to write about it, and it should definitely remain in the present article. Jim.henderson 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to see the disambiguation tidied a bit. Haven't come up with an opinion as to whether this page or the DAB should be at the present location, though.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Noodling around, I've become aware of a number of editors aligning Brooklyn places with New York City naming conventions, to wit: Place (borough). Or, if a place spans boroughs Place (New York City). To fit in with that convention, and to help disambiguating this place from the other Grand Army Plaza in New York City, this page should move to Grand Army Plaza (Brooklyn). No? Then the disambiguation page would get the generic name this page currently uses and henceforth, would serve to sort out all possible grand army plazas on the planet (which may be more than two). Take care — Gosgood 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the current name is fine. Naming conventions give precedence to more well known or older subjects as long as there are not a lot of other things with the same name. In the event someone creates an article on the Manhattan version, it would be a simple matter to do a see also at the top without having to go to the lengths of needless disambiguations. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I aggree, the article needs cleanup, sofixit - delink all the redlinks to start. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Prospect Park West and St. Johns Place may be important enough, as they had streetcar lines. The rest probably aren't. --NE2 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they all have locally important names - names that pre-date the park, and either are assicuated with the Revolutionary or Civil War, or local land owners. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Important streets, yes. Important statues, yes. Streetcars, yes. Redlinks, no, because none of these are good reasons to dangle a link. Never having lived in Brookyn, I have shopped in Union Street in past years, gone to Berkeley Place for meetings, bicycled up and down Vanderbilt Avenue many times, and attended the St Patrick's Day Parade on PPW this spring, but none of these are reasons for a redlink. There should be a red link where there is an immediate prospect of an article. Otherwise, no. Probably the statuary and other features of the Plaza will be handled indefinitely by sections of this article, hence they will never need the links that have been provided.
When someone wants to write an article about Union Street or the former trolleys, surely they will then insert the proper links to and from this important place, so meanwhile there is no need. Far as I see a 10% red link quota is 'way too generous, rather than too restrictive. Kill them all, or nearly all, so the ignorant majority of readers won't wonder why they get thrown into an edit box when they click on a street. Jim.henderson 05:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
When I write an article, I usually don't search for places to link it from. --NE2 05:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I argue for readability! The typographic trick to signal a link exacts a price on readability: the color change is disruptive. The price is worth paying if the link is good, but these just dangle, disrupting the present article while delivering nothing other than an edit box for their trouble.
Example why a word or phrase can safely stay black until its moment arrives. Last winter I found myself tripping over Aymar Embury II a good deal: no article on him, but clearly an architect who had influenced the urban landscape through his association with Robert Moses. After pulling together enough material for a decent start, the Wikipedia search facility, combined with simple common sense on where his name would likely occur, located a good many instances of where links should be. All instances of Embury's name were black, but it was a simple, trivial exercise to set up active, blue links. Instances of his name did not have to dangle, red, for months on end. Take care — Gosgood 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I had a similar experience in Main distribution frame a few months ago. As you have noticed, I edited this plaza article half a day ago, killing all the redlinks and some extraneous bolds as well. Seems to me, we editors aren't writing for ourselves, or for others who already know something about the topic; we're writing primarily for the ignorant. Think of a schoolkid in Flushing, or better a tourist in a Midtown hotel who's looking at a brochure that says one of the bus tours goes to Grand Army Plaza. They Google it and hit this article. They don't know what Wikipedia is, don't want to, and don't have to. They just want to understand this somewhat famous place in Brooklyn.
Masses of redlinks belong in some places, for example in lists that are intended to become, some day, comprehensive. Especially a stale old topic like Queens trolley lines should have a long list even if it turns out mostly red. This article, however, is more like Sunset Park, Brooklyn or Willets Point, Queens which have one redlink each. That's an appropriate number in an article this size about a living topic, give or take one. These articles should be strictly narrative with maybe a few photos and no neat lists that are intended to become comprehensive. When we create articles (apart from redirects, I generally kill more old articles by merger than start new ones) that's the first and main time to look for existing articles, no matter who wrote them, that ought to link. That way, the ignorant can go from topic to related topic without stopping to puzzle what to do with the "Edit" box. Jim.henderson 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quadriga from platform view- which version?

Edited version
Edited version

I guess now is the time to ask this question, since it seems that people are finally watching this talk page. I tried to nominate my close-up side view of the quadriga from atop the arch of the as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Army Plaza a while back, and while it failed, there were a number of "improved" edits generated. The one to the right is probably the best of these edits. Do you guys think we should go with the original or an edited version?--Pharos 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work, but not convinced that it is a featured pic; I certainly appreciate the effort you went to get it. I haven't been able to get up to the top for about six years, and I live just blocks away (I stitched together this panorama from a number of shots taken on the day I was up there). Particulars. My preferences run to the colored version, as adapted by Thelb4. I like the subtle color modulation over no color whatsoever, but it has been sharpened somewhat, bringing out surface detail. The item that bugs me is the little bit of 47 Plaza around the rear legs. The edges are pretty clear, so it is possible to make a spline curve mask and trim the building out. I'm not sure what the Featured Picture folk would think of that. I'm under the impression that they would rather people get it right in camera and keep the post work to color correction and rebalancing (though mask edits are routine in advertising). If you do want to take a swing at Featured Picture again, I would go with one of the edited versions. Take care. — Gosgood 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lower plaza statuary

Concerning seeing a bit more on 'lower plaza statuary.' that jim.henderson wondered about. Commission and installation dates, artists, cultural significance and other such on the monuments used to be found on paper signs that the Parks Department put up around 2000 - 2001. With the exception of the Arch, all have disappeared, but the text to these survive at the Parks Department web site, to wit:

Subject parks site book reference newspaper reference
John F. Kennedy John F. Kennedy Statue Architectural Guidebook to Brooklyn (Francis Morrone) p 410  ?
Henry W. Maxwell Henry Maxwell Monument  ?  ?
Alexander Skene Alexander Skene Statue Architectural Guidebook to Brooklyn (Francis Morrone) p 410  ?
Henry Warner Slocum General Henry Warner Slocum  ?  ?
Gouverneur Kemble Warren General Warren Statue  ? Brooklyn Daily Eagle July 05, 1896 page 3

The Parks Department text has not been updated, and does not, for example, reflect the fact that the John F. Kennedy statue is being renovated, and the pedestal had been replaced in the 2005-2006 renovation of the plaza. Morrone serves with reinforcing material in at least two cases, maybe more: I don't have my copy handy at the moment to check. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Online had coverage on the unveiling of Warren's statue, but the others, it seems, fall outside its 1902 cutoff. On the whole though, there seems enough on hand to write when a memorial appeared in the plaza, and who the sculptor was.

To accommodate, I think the outline of the article changes somewhat. Here's a proposed outline:

  1. Arch
    1. Statuary Quadriga, The Spirit of the Army, and The Spirit of the Navy
  2. Fountains and Memorials
    1. Plaza Fountains: 1872 - present Single spout, Vaux Plaza, Electric Fountain, Bailey Fountain
    2. John F. Kennedy Statue
    3. Henry Maxell Monument
    4. Alexander Skene Statue
    5. General Henry Warner Slocum
    6. General Warren Statue
  3. Current uses
  4. References

Colored headings constitute reworded and releveled heads. Green makes use of existing text; red introduce new text paraphrased from sources, mainly citing installation dates and the artists involved in the memorial. These new remarks need not go into any greater detail than, for example, the sentence or two that presently describes the Baily fountain.

Perhaps, this time, I won't wait a month for comments. The talk page seems to have become quite active ;) Take care. — Gosgood 14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You architecture fans sure know how to write. I should have looked at this page more recently, but have been busy at, among other things, bicycling through Grand Army Plaza on my way to or from Manhattan. Yes, please, it's about time to carry out the above scheme and make the article slightly larger and even better. Unless the Project people have extraordinary high standares, it's also time to upgrade the assessment from "B". Jim.henderson 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rewrite

It's a bit messy on the tail end, but this is how the re-write is shaping up: You are all entirely welcome to play in my sandbox. Or post comments here, however you see fit. Take care; hope to hear from you. — Gosgood 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oof. It's kind of big, eh? Four times the present article and twice the oft ignored WP:SIZE guideline maximum. But it's full of good prose and information, and with good photos added. Let's see, I can pick at some nits. The electric fountain, being long out of service, belongs in a later position. With most extant subjects, such as Battery Park, the first part of an article should say what the thing is. What it was long ago, should go in a history section along with how it came to be what it is. Which, in the case of your draft would make about half the article into a history section and suggest separating the history into an article of its own. Alternately the fountain half of the plaza could be separated out, or the sculptures separated from the architecture and setting, but in this case I lean towards treating the modern day as one topic and the past as another.
Anyway, whether you spend weeks finishing the whole new version in sandbox and then knock it into position with one swell foop, or move a few paragraphs at a time into the real article for a bigger audience to carp at, I mean help out with each bit, I am confident we'll get both a bigger and, more important, a better article. Jim.henderson 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you are right about spawning off the history section. And also right about the narrative arc being on the order of 'is → was → came to be'. If we do spawn a separate article (or two), then most of the 'was → came to be' goes in separate articles with only a summaries in GAP main. There may be something to putting the electric fountain in its own article, one that revolves around Darlington. He seems a fascinating character, but, alas, there is precious little about him in secondary sources. It was a long hunt to find out that 'F' stood for 'Frederic.' Like your suggestions. Any help would be appreciated. — Gosgood 09:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fountain

I had forgotten about this for months, and was chasing some kind of railroad thread that ran dry in Denver, which had a Darlington fountain, and I said to myself "Darlington? Not the Bell Labs Darlington? Where else do I know that name from?" You seem to have traced the fellow quit a bit, Garry. I guess the Electric Fountain was a wonder of the age after gaslit fountains wowed the crowd, but the new kind was as expensive to maintain as the old, so they went away. I guess. Got nothing approaching a relevant cite. And then Darlington and others were able to set the fountains to music, and thus was born, from roots in Brooklyn and elsewhere, one of the the inanest public art form of that epicenter of inanity, Las Vegas. Probably. Plenty of fun anyway. Meanwhile there ought to be some cute way to tie in my Ridgewood Reservoir article to the earlier fountain. We're still not at the point of deciding whether to split off a separate fountain article.

Tuesday I bicycled from the reservoir through East New York and Eastern Parkway to Brooklyn Heights and took a few dozen photos on the way including Downstate's allegedly largest birch forest. None of GAP except the library front door. I hope to get to the Pupin Hall meeting Sunday afternoon and to bring my camera and maybe my laptop to allow comparing photos for insertion in various articles. Oddly enough, the GAP article looks nicer under Opera browser than MS Internet Explorer. PS: I really like the way you used a colon to make a link to an image that isn't good enough to work into the composition of the article itself. I should use that trick in other articles that have become overcrowded. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I've never read anything about Darlington integrating music into fountain mechanicals; the Plaza fountain was certainly silent. I have heard that orchestras were sometimes combined with electric fountain displays and that may have occured in Brooklyn; perhaps scrounging around the Eagle would turn something up.
  • [[:Image:...]] is a nice way to extend an article subtly. It offlines pictures, so the article doesn't clutter with them, and, golly gee, you can write captions to the pictures to offload detail that would also sandbag an article. (I have a lot of detail in my sandbox version of this article that would utterly clutter the main namespace version, but would make sense in a caption dedicated to the picture). In time, these captions can become articles in their own right, but then, maybe not: these captions don't suffer from AfD debates the same way that newly spawned articles can.
  • Vaux's fountain was a hydraulic pig. I don't think this was such a big issue when it first went in, 1874, but ten years on, with Brooklyn growing the way it was, and the fountain was becoming a problem. That may be an ancedote worth looking into for the reservoir articles you are working on. Darlington used circular pumps to recycle water. But the electrical draw! Two trolley lines each donated 500 volt, high current feeds to light those nineteen carbon-arc lamps. I guess they hoped to make up the loss on custom wanting to go to the plaza to see the displays.
  • There's some details about the construction and planning of the Ridgewood Reservoir in the Eagle. Go over to Brooklyn Eagle Online and scrounge around. See you at the meetup. Gosgood (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you at the meeting, Garry, and others who are sure to be listening. Maybe some of our fans of Brooklyn will want to get together with the Kings Byte Computer Club who meet in Brooklyn Heights the first Tuesday of the month. Anyway, I used the [[:Image trick in the Jackie Robinson Parkway article, though not in as sophisticated a way as you did here. Clearly, an excessively devious mind could built a network of articles in the guise of picture descriptions, escaping Wiki standard censorship. Alas, this week through no fault of my own I've had a life and become a bit too busy for such a silly game. Also haven't chased any hydraulic prey; just been reading whatever came to my mind, linking things that the authors didn't think of, and adding pictures taken by my old broken little camera. Might get down to more serious editing next week. Have fun! Jim.henderson (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section reorganization: rationale

I didn't think much of the idea of placing the entire article under an 'Overview' rubric, but I found the old sectional organization a bit off as well. The statuary was really about the Arch adornments, and seemed to me to be best discussed under a single 'Arch' heading. There are other statues in the Plaza, currently unmentioned in the main article, but would form a distinct 'Plaza statues' section. The fountains seemed to form a distinct section. Then finally, the traffic, another undeveloped section. The abduction of the Plaza by traffic is presently an untold story. Comments welcome. Gosgood (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)