Talk:Floyd Bennett Field

FBF is at least as important as Meigs Field used as an example of a "High" importance article, and FBF is likely of much more historical significance. The article may not be extensive enough to adequately indicate the historical significance, but a facility of such importance and connection to general aviation, commercial aviation, military aviation, Naval Air Stations, law enforcement aviation, Coast Guard aviation, air races, technological development, helicopter development (the article does not yet mention Sykorsky at FBF), popular culture, and historic preservation deserves at least a "High" rating, and likely higher. The dozens of aviation records and "firsts" set here alone make it deserving of a "High" importance rating. Compared to Meigs, FBF is at least still in existance!Shoreranger 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I suppose I was comparing it to Croydon, which served as a fighter base during the Battle of Britain. But you are correct that it played a historic role in aviation, and I would not object to the "High" importance. --Petercorless 08:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

FBF should definitely be rated at at least high importance. Sikorsky tested helicopters at FBF, and I believe there was other testing also. It served as a VIP airport while it was a military field (for the US President, foreign visitors to the UN, ambassadors, and so on - due to better security). It based aircraft for The Eastern Sea Frontier Command (located at 3rd Naval District HQ, now disestablished), who was/is responsible for protecting the eastern shores of the US. I have been collection information on Naval Air Station New York (NAS NY) for years, and will be writing/expanding the section on the period of time it was a NAS (1941-1971). A lot happened then, as well as before. At some point during it's military history, there was a recruit boot camp, as well as a training facility for, if I can remember rightly, the Aviation Boatswain’s Mate rating in the US Navy. It had an on-base movie theater, three social/drinking/eating clubs (enlisted, chief, officer), a religious chapel, and a medical facility. NAS NY had ammo bunkers and a functional pier on Jamaica Bay. Becksguy 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's great. One suggestion, Becksguy: This article is already a little long, so I suggest you put your research to use in an article on NAS New York specifically, rather than expanding this article much. Good luck. Shoreranger 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a good idea, Shoreranger. Keep the FBF article with a major emphasis on civilian use, both before and after it was military. That way, the NAS New York article will be also more orthogonal with other Naval Air Station articles. Makes sense. Now I have to see if I have enough for a full article. Anyway, it can start as a stub and work it's way up to a start-class, or better eventually. Thanks. — Becksguy 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

floyd bennett field was the home of the 106 aero medical evacuation wing to the air national guard,from the 50s to the early 60s, after which the wing was transferred to long island n.y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.76.240 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

"CGAS Brooklyn" now redirects here. Floyd Bennett Field is named as CGAS Brooklyn in some directories and games including Microsoft Flight Simulator. Dreammaker182 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is inaccurate, there is at least on other overnight campsite within New York City. The Greater New York Councils of the Boy Scouts of America maintains The William H. Pouch Camp in Staten Island, NY. Pouch Camp provides overnight camping facilities for both Boy Scout units and for other organizations that provide trained adult leadership. Docdave (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone. I just wanted to let you know that a series of photos have been donated to Wikimedia Commons by the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and a few of them include images from the murals at Floyd Bennett Field. Perhaps they'll be of use to contributors of this article, or just something neat to look at :) You can view them here! --SarahStierch (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking for an article to review for GAN because I submitted an article myself and although it's not a requirement, I support the quid pro quo. As an experienced editor and GA reviewer, I highly recommend that you remove the GAN. I'm inclined to fail it, but I hesitated because a failed nom is never a good thing. You should remove the GAN because this article is way too long; that's the reason it's languished so long at GAN. At almost 75,500 characters, it's a perfect article to split into several articles. For example, out of the first section, "History", you could create a new article, History of Floyd Bennett Field, today. I'm happy to assist in any way; please let me know how. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Figureskatingfan: Thanks for your comments. A length issue also came up at Talk:Pelham Bay Park/GA1, another article that I expanded and nominated. I personally am not a big fan of "History of ..." articles (I'd rather split off articles about individual facilities). I'll see what I can trim, though. epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, sorry if I caused difficulty. Good luck, let me know how I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

Reviewer: Dmartin969 (talk · contribs) 22:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is my preliminary review only, I will revisit the page regularly over the coming days. My main concern is the "notable flights" section which is very disorganised and potentially overly long. I would recommend a maximum of 10-12 listing of only basic information about the most important flights. Additionally the lead needs citations.

@Dmartin969: Thanks for the comments. I will trim the "notable flights" section, but my general feeling is that many of these flights are notable (most are blue links). Also, per WP:CITELEAD, as long as the info is cited in the body and isn't controversial, the lead doesn't necessarily need citations. It clogs up the lead editing area, and these citations already exist in the article. epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: Everything looks great with those updates. Dmartin969 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

in the Notable Flights section, there's no airfield at Moylgrove (Wales) nor anywhere suitable to land even a light aircraft. I suspect that the reference to this (which looks valid) is either mistaken, or there was a crash landing. Gilgamesh4 (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Went over to Floy Bennett Field yesterday, got some pictures of some of the abandoned buildings, nature area, and beach area. Seems like some may belong in the article, but the article is fairly well illustrated as it is, and it's a GA, so I'll just put this link here: commons:Category:Photographs taken by Rhododendrites - Floyd Bennett Field. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply