Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Riegelmann Boardwalk/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2021 [1].

Riegelmann Boardwalk

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wooden boardwalk in Coney Island, Brooklyn, NYC. First proposed in the 1890s, the boardwalk opened in 1923, and has been renovated and expanded several times since then. Its namesake is a borough president who didn't want the boardwalk to be named after him. There are several attractions and landmarks on this boardwalk, which became a New York City designated landmark in 2016.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man (who incidentally also reviewed Parachute Jump, another Coney Island-related FAC). After a much-appreciated copy edit by Tdslk, I think it's up to FA quality now. I previously nominated the page in September, but it stalled due to lack of reviews. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

[edit]
All of my concerns have been addressed, leaning support pending review of sources, etc. Putting this note at the top to avoid collapsing per the template limit problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this source: it appears to be a book (?), but no publisher is listed. If it's a journal, it seems to need an article title. American Lumberman. American Lumberman. 1922. p. 22. Archived from the original on September 21, 2020.
  • Similar here ... this seems to be a bound collection of journals, but the article title and volume are missing ... American Lumberman. American Lumberman. 1922. p. 22. Archived from the original on September 21, 2020.
  • Some of the publishers are a bit informal example: "Steeplechase Park Highlights". Parachute Jump : NYC Parks. June 26, 1939. Archived from the original on July 11, 2019. The publisher is the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation.

Stopping there on looking at the citations, but please give another pass with an eye towards issues like this. Some may need to switch to cite journal ?? At first glance, the sourcing is reliable but some minor cleanup might be needed. On MOS-y things, no image caption issues, no hyphen/dash issues, no MOS:SANDWICH, good use of NBSPs and converts.

  • Please doublecheck use of MOS:LQ with the sources.

Prose:

  • I question most of the uses of the word also, which is almost always redundant (see User:Tony1 writing exercises). Samples: The boardwalk is also used as a bike lane between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. each day, ... It has also become an icon of Coney Island,
  • Do we need the first Brighton? to Brighton 15th Street in Brighton Beach.
  • MOS:LQ, should this be adjusted? to "give ample clear space under the boardwalk both longitudinally and laterally."
    • Done.
  • to the beach at intervals of every ​1 1⁄2 blocks --> to the beach at intervals of ​1 1⁄2 blocks
    • Done.
  • As part of the construction of the boardwalk, 16 rock jetties spaced at intervals of 600 feet (180 m) were built to prevent violent waves from crashing against the boardwalk. --> To prevent violent waves from crashing against the boardwalk, 16 rock jetties were built at intervals of 600 feet (180 m).
    • Done.
  • The current beaches are not a natural feature; the sand that would naturally replenish Coney Island is cut off by the jetty at Breezy Point, Queens. Current is redundant.
    • Done.
  • The preceding paragraph tells us how much concrete and sand was used, so this sentence seems misplaced ... The boardwalk has a steel and concrete foundation supporting wood planking for the walkway, though much of this is no longer visible due to the beach having been raised after the boardwalk was constructed. ... Would it be better placed at the beginning of the previous para?
    • Done.
  • This is another MOS:LQ instance: The diagonal pattern was to "facilitate the ease of walking," ... pls check throughout.
  • Hyphenation issue here: a 150-foot (46 m)-tall eccentric Ferris wheel that is also a recognized city landmark. --> an eccentric Ferris wheel that is 150 feet (46 m) tall and recognized as a city landmark. (Is Ferris supposed to be uppercase?)
  • Wikilink zygote.
    • Done.
  • It would be less cumbersome to re-cast this sentence: a 332-foot-long (101 m), 10-foot-tall (3.0 m) wall relief created by Japanese artist Toshio Sasaki --> a wall relief created by Japanese artist Toshio Sasaki that is 332 feet (101 m) long and 10 feet (3.0 m) tall
    • Done.
  • Ugh: Steeplechase Pier is a 1,040-foot (320 m) pier located at the intersection of the boardwalk and West 17th Street, near the site of Steeplechase Park, of which the pier was originally part. Steeplechase Pier, at the intersection of the boardwalk and West 17th Street and 1,040 feet (320 m) long, was originally part of Steeplechase Park. Look for opportunities to re-cast sentences to avoid the hyphens, and "located at" is almost always redundant.

Stopping there for now, will resume at "History" section once you have processed this. Please look for similar in the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please go through the remainder of the article looking for similar before I re-visit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. It may take me a day or so since I am busy with finals. Epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, pls ping me when I should continue. Good luck with finals! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I've had a few minutes to look this over briefly. I've gone through the MOS:LQ issues in the prose, the overuse of "located", and the use of adjectival form in the conversion templates. However, I haven't looked over other issues yet, and will do so after my finals are over. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been addressed; continuing from History (prose is already much improved!):

  • Personal pet peeve ... the word major is overused and adds nothing: Coney Island contained three competing major amusement parks ... unless it can be replaced with something more descriptive, it could be ditched.
    • Done.
  • Could this just say presented (past tense)? Other organizations in the 1900s would present numerous proposals ...
    • Done.
  • The "almost everyone" here is ill-defined ... is that referring to the public, to governmental boards or commissions, what? This time, almost everyone supported the proposed boardwalk,
  • Should the lead say which borough it is in?
  • "Measured" is unnecessary ... The extension measured about 3,000 to 4,000 feet (910 to 1,220 m) long, ... the extension was ... don't use a big word when a small word suffices :)
    • Done.
  • Ugh ...
  • The $1 million extension was originally supposed to have been paid for through taxes that were levied on Coney Island property owners via tax assessments. Although some property owners objected to the assessments,[103] they were ultimately forced to pay for the project. .... How about -->
  • The $1 million extension was to be paid for via tax assessments levied on Coney Island property owners. Although some property owners objected to the assessments, they were ultimately forced to pay for the project.
  • Fixed.
  • Here's a redundant "addition" (similar to "also"): In addition, in October 1938, the city acquired 18 acres (7.3 ha) from developer Joseph P. Day for the proposed eastward extension. --> The city acquired another 18 acres (7.3 ha) in October 1938 from developer Joseph P. Day for the proposed eastward extension.
    • Removed.
  • See User:Tony1 writing exercises: but these plans were modified in 1939 in order to preserve the amusement area there ...
  • covering of sand was placed along the entirety of the beachfront. This was accomplished using sand from the Rockaways and New Jersey. --> covering of sand from the Rockaways and New Jersey was placed along the entirety of the beachfront.
    • Done.
  • Since there is a separate section for the 21st century, it is odd to see it mentioned in the 20th century section ... Further work was undertaken on the boardwalk in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
    • Fixed.
  • The most commonly WP:OVERLINKed article on Wikipedia ... World War II does not need to be linked here. Everyone knows what it is, no one is going to click it from this article.
    • Removed.
  • The boardwalk's maintenance was in active decline by the 1970s.[133] As such, repairs on two sections of boardwalk between Brighton 1st and Brighton 15th Streets were underway by 1975.[139] Local officials, such as then-assemblyman Chuck Schumer, and residents of the surrounding communities petitioned for the city's board of estimate to release $650,000 in funding for repairs to the boardwalk.[140]
  • Board of Estimate is uppercase in the rest of the article? Also, ... The boardwalk's maintenance was in active decline by the 1970s, but repairs on two sections of boardwalk between Brighton 1st and Brighton 15th Streets were underway by 1975.
  • Considering the surrounding context, would it not be better to switch "In 1983, it was estimated that three-quarters of the planks were in good shape" to "In 1983, it was estimated that one-quarter of the planks were not in good shape"? The switch in context is odd.
  • However, the addition of the concrete sections was controversial. ... See the top of my user page, this however is not needed.
    • Removed.
  • Though concrete was cheaper and did not require wood sourced from the Amazon rainforest, many local residents and officials felt that the boardwalk would only be authentic if made of wood. --> Though concrete was cheaper and did not require wood sourced from the Amazon rainforest, many local residents and officials felt that wood would be more authentic.
    • Done.
  • Additionally, there was no logistical difficulty in securing wood: ... additionally is like also, redundant and not needed.
    • Removed.
  • The construction of the boardwalk opened up the beach ...
    • Done.

Very nice work, and what a complete history ! Leaning support, pending further review by others and sourcing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks! I've addressed all these comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go study for your finals!! I will weigh in again once source review is done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Spicy

[edit]

Interesting read. A well-written article overall. Comments below:

  • "and an "infrastructure accomplishment" comparable to the Catskill Watershed and Central Park." - The quote marks beg the question of who you are quoting... it would probably be too much detail to attribute the quote in the lead, so paraphrasing it might be better
  • Maybe link cantilever
    • Done.
  • ""Comfort stations" or restrooms, also no longer extant," the way this is phrased makes it sound like restrooms are no longer extant - I hope not!
  • " which is both a city landmark and a National Register of Historic Places listing." - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the "listing" the designation itself, not the building so designated?
  • "Steeplechase Pier was originally used by anglers and it was also used by ferry lines to Coney Island until 1932." - this is a bit clunky, maybe "Steeplechase Pier was used by anglers and, until 1932, by ferry lines to Coney Island"?
    • Done.
  • "The original Steeplechase Pier was erected by builder F. J. Kelly at an unknown date, but construction had been completed within 30 days" - I don't think "but" is appropriate here; these two facts don't contradict each other. What about "The original Steeplechase Pier was erected by builder F. J. Kelly at an unknown date and construction was completed within 30 days".
  • "Several improvements, such as a proposed widening and an auditorium,[11][37] were never built" I think it might sound slightly better to move "proposed" before "improvements".
    • Done.
  • "Steeplechase Pier was damaged multiple times in the following years due to hurricanes, fires..." - "by" would sound more natural than "due to" here
    • Done.
  • "and its simultaneous relative distance from the city of Brooklyn to provide the illusion of a proper vacation" - this is an awkward read. I get what you are going for but I'm sure how to rephrase it myself.
    • I've reworded the sentence. It wasn't geographically distant from the city of Brooklyn, but only gave the appearance of such (I think because of the undeveloped land and the lack of road transport). Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A series of fires in the resorts in the 1880s and 1890s opened up large tracts of land" - this piques my curiosity. Did they all burn to the ground? or were the resorts just shut down?
    • Not a FAC issue but I'm surprised how often things catch on fire here.
  • " By the first decade of the 20th century, it contained three competing major amusement parks " what is "it" referring to? Coney Island, presumably, but it's not mentioned in the preceding sentence
  • " since it was actually the private property of beachfront lots." I think you could remove "actually" here; not the most encyclopedic term
    • Done.
  • "Starting in 1882, various lots" don't think "various" is necessary either
    • Done.
  • "in 1904, it was estimated that there would be 1.4 square inches (9.0 cm2) of public beachfront" - any reason why this is "would be" and not "were"?
    • Fixed.
  • "the formerly seedy waterfront" - "seedy" is a bit informal, should be in quotes if you're quoting Patten, otherwise I think a different word should be used
    • Reworded.
  • "Riegelmann and his assistant commissioner of public works opposed naming the boardwalk after him" - any reason why?
    • Added.
  • "who contended that it would bring unwanted social degradation to their community." - as opposed to wanted social degradation?
    • Removed.
  • "wood sourced from trees in the Amazon rainforest," - you could remove "trees"... readers know that wood comes from trees
    • Done.
  • "Additionally, there was no logicistical difficulty in securing wood:" - typo ("logistical"). Were there logistical issues with concrete? It's not clear from the article
    • Fixed.
  • "at the time, the Rockaway Boardwalk was simultaneously" - "at the time" is redundant to "simultaneously"
    • Removed.
  • [2] is a WP:NEWSBLOG; is this RS? There's an obvious typo in the second paragraph, which makes me question their editorial practices
  • "In 2014, amid the push to rebuild the boardwalk using concrete"..."later in 2014, NYC Parks commenced a project to repair the boardwalk using concrete" - a bit repetitive
  • The final paragraph of the 21st century section leaves the reader hanging. Is the reconstruction still ongoing? Does its designation as a city landmark affect the reconstruction efforts?
  • "As a stand-in for Coney Island" - it is part of Coney Island, so it's not really a "stand-in". Would "symbol" be a better word to use?
    • Done.
  • The final paragraph of the cultural significance section gets a bit repetitive as it's just listing off various TV shows, movies, etc. Maybe you could give more information about some of the more notable appearances - e.g. what role the boardwalk played in a given film?
    • This is the only section of the article I really had difficulty with. The sources mention that the boardwalk was used as a backdrop or setting for these works of media, but they don't elaborate much. I considered removing this paragraph altogether and replacing it with a summary. The paragraph was only included because the sources mentioned these appearances. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd think you could use sources about the films/tv shows/etc, as opposed to ones specifically about Coney Island, to provide more detail. But this is not a major issue IMO. Spicy (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this up for FAC. Spicy (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: Thank you for your comments. I've responded to all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - happy to support this well-written and well-researched article. I haven't looked at the sources, but I did not see any obvious red flags on a skim of the reference section. Spicy (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I am not familiar with New York geography or the boardwalk, so this will be from a "non-expert" perspective. I will begin with the prose. Overall, I only have small quibbles:

  • Optional: was installed along the boardwalk in 1993, outside the New York Aquarium I would put the year at the end of the sentence. This keeps the location information together and then describes the time period. Plus, it gets rid of the comma. Suggested rewording: "was installed along the boardwalk outside the New York Aquarium in 1993."
    • Done.
  • Steeplechase Pier was damaged multiple times because of hurricanes, fires, and boat accidents. Replace "because of" with "by"
    • Done.
  • the first of which was Sea Lion Park in 1895. The next sentence mentions three competing amusement parts, but Sea Lion Park is not one of them. What happened to this park? A half-sentence or sentence explaining this would be appropriate.
  • resorts at both Coney Island[41] and Rockaway Beach.[60] Remove "both".
    • Done.
  • in 1901 would have had property owners pay half of the boardwalk's $350,000 construction cost. Replace "have had" with "require" or something similar. "Have had" is awkward phrasing.
    • Done.
  • became the city's eleventh "scenic landmark", and as such, could not be removed. Remove "as such"
    • Done.

I will continue with a second readthrough and source review after the above are addressed, so please ping me when that is complete. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed them now. Epicgenius (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source Check - pass

[edit]

I am checking the sources for accuracy and quality. This is my first in-depth source review, so I welcome feedback on my comments if I can improve. Unless mentioned below, I was able to determine that every source exists and links where it should. I also carried out some spot checks.

  • Ref 3: Concerning: and, according to designer Philip Farley, to "give ample clear space under the boardwalk both longitudinally and laterally". I think the newspaper clip is a speech by T. I. Jones to the Rotary Club of Brooklyn (see page 29 of the source) and I can't find Farley being mentioned in the article. I don't think it's proper to accredit Farley to this quote.
  • Ref 7: Concerning: and is held in place by around two dozen groynes. I could not find this in the reference. Can you quote the info on the page that is used to verify this?
  • Ref 10: Concerning "arched entrances, rows of Tuscan columns, corner piers, and red tile roofs". and "comfort stations". My pdf reader says this information is on page 15, but the reference says it's on page 14.
    • Fixed.

I got to the end of "Description". I will continue this at a later date. Feel free to comment on these concerns in the meantime. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing below. I finished the History section. I checked all the links and performed various spot checks (especially for quotes.) Here are some thoughts:

  • Ref 47: The source does not state that this was the first bridge. Also, delete the ref after the comma as you already cite this at the end of the sentence.
  • Ref 48: I couldn't verify Coney Island House in the transcript. What did you use to verify this information?
  • rather than constructing a beach or clearing the waterfront.[71][70] I think ref 70 is supposed to go first.
    • Done.
  • Ref 87: The ref cites p 1087 but the book has less than 500 pages.
  • with four modular units being delivered to West 8th, West 2nd, Brighton 2nd, and New Brighton Streets.[160][44] I think refs should be flipped.
    • Done.

I will continue this at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished my source review. I reviewed Cultural significance and Accolades and found no issues. I rechecked ref 87 (now ref 86) and verified the info. I looked at the formatting in References and found no issues. All my source review concerns have been addressed so I will pass the source review. I will conduct another prose readthrough later. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Part 2

Some minor prose stuff:

  • Steeplechase Pier was originally used by anglers and, until 1932, was also used by ferry lines to Coney Island. Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • Riegelmann and his assistant commissioner of public works opposed the name, preferring that the project instead be known as the "Coney Island Boardwalk". Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • At the time of its opening, the boardwalk was said to be wider and more expensive than the comparable boardwalks at Atlantic City, the Rockaways, and Long Beach on Long Island. Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • Brooklyn public officials believed that these changes would revitalize Coney Island's Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • The boardwalk extension was slated to have connected to a steamship pier Replace with "The boardwalk extension was slated to connect to a steamship pier" (change underlined)
  • Parks commissioner Robert Moses had previously criticized the condition Remove struck out text.
    • Done.
  • This included the replacement of the original street lights with replicas in the 1960s, as well as the replacement of benches, drinking fountains, pavilions, and comfort stations. Replace with "This included the replacement of the original street lights with replicas in the 1960s and the replacement of benches, drinking fountains, pavilions, and comfort stations."
    • Done.
  • recent project to repair the boardwalk and that the Brooklyn borough president's office had budgeted $20 million since 1981 to repair the boardwalk. Replace with "recent project to repair the boardwalk and that the Brooklyn borough president's office had budgeted $20 million since 1981 for repairs."
    • Done.
  • In addition, the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission Remove struck out text
    • Done.

Please ping me when complete. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed them now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns. I support this FAC. Great job on this article. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

Source check forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • References generally look to be high-quality reliable sources for NY history; formatted and archived where appropriate (man, they didn't give a lot of writers bylines in the old days, did they?) Article heavily relies on a few sources, but I think they're appropriate given the focus.
    • The only refs that give me pause are the newer, hyperlocal ones like The Brooklyn Home Reporter and BKLYNER. I think there's a decent argument that they meet reliable source thresholds, but aren't to the quality level we'd expect for FA.
      • When looking through sources for the boardwalk, I tried to use more established sources like the NY Times and TV stations. However, there are a few statements that probably can only be referenced to these newer sites. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking broadly, I note that there's a lot of unattributed quotes throughout the article that I think should either be attributed, or ideally just axed altogether. It's either important to know that Matt Postal characterized the pergolas as having tuscan columns and red roofs in exactly the way he said it (and hey, the guy does great descriptions, but we can leave some for the report) or it can be rephrased. Right now it's just kind of weird when we're jumping out of Wikipedia's voice for these unknown interludes.
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to revision refs 1, 3, 4, 13, 17, 21, 32, 34, 35, 47, 48, 54, 61, 80, 88, 92, 94, 118, 126, 132, 134, 138, 151, 160, 165, 170, 171, 173, and 175.
    • Ref 3 is used to cite "It is raised 14 feet (4.3 m) above sea level to protect against storm surges, and, according to a speech given in 1923 to the Rotary Club of Brooklyn, to "give ample clear space under the boardwalk both longitudinally and laterally"."—the cited ref actually gives a height of 13 feet.
    • I may be missing it, but I don't see the quote in Ref 4 about the pattern for ease of walking, at least on page 47.
    • Ref 13 discusses the use of concrete instead of tropical hardwoods for the boardwalk, but doesn't discuss the previous rebuilds of the boardwalk
      • I clarified that this was the case as of the early 2010s (the news article was published in 2011). Previous rebuilds are mentioned in the history section, but they're too numerous to individually source in this sentence, so I've removed that part. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you go beyond the stated source with "Coney Island could be reached easily from Manhattan, while appearing to be relatively far away, providing residents the illusion of a proper vacation. As a result, Coney Island began attracting vacationers in the 1830s and 1840s, and numerous resorts were built."—the ref provided covers its proximity to Manhattan making it an attractive spot, but doesn't really editorialize (at least on that page) about an "illusion" of vacation.
    • Ref 54 is used to cite the fact that most of the beach was taken up by private interests and resorts, but it mostly only hints at that; it seems like you'd need to cite the opening pages as well (801 covers it much more directly.)
    • Ref 126 is used to cite "The Board of Estimate approved the modified plan in December 1939" but the Daily Eagle story points out while it seems a certainty, the actual vote was delayed a week. Is there a better source from the actual vote that can be used here?
    • Ref 160 only mentions Treyger, not Deutsch.
    • Ref 165 doesn't mention the Landmarks commission previously rejected landmark status for the boardwalk.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Thanks for the source review. I've addressed all the points above. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done a quick second spot-check and didn't spot further issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

As I supported the first time around, I'm sure it'll be fine, just going to give it another read as things have changed since my first review.

Lede
Prose

Overall, there's very little to critique here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the comments. I've made these changes now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good for now. Change to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: The source and image reviews have been conducted, and this nomination has four prose supports, with no opposes. Is anything else needed for this nomination? Thanks in advance. Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Riegelmann_Boardwalk/archive2&oldid=1000179694"