Talk:Washington Park (Chicago park)

Map

A map of the park would be a nice touch. Shsilver 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The best I can do is what is in External links. TonyTheTiger 22:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Gorgeous

This article is 1000% better. Sorry I'm not around to contribute more. Great job guys! TheQuandry 02:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GA

Good article. One question:is it necessary to have a parenthetical "park" in the article title? Is there a Washington Park that I missed in the article that is not a park in Chicago. Otherwise, well-written and referenced.Reddyrov

Scratch that. I found it.Reddyrov

Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.--Stemonitis 14:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Washington Park (Chicago park) → Washington Park, Chicago (park) — Page was moved from this name without discussion. This name conforms to other park names (see for example Washington Park (disambiguation)). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support I believe that the page move was an incorrect one. I believe the page name should follow the convention at given the general convention at Washington Park (disambiguation) for community areas and parks. The page should be returned to Washington Park, Chicago (park), which is now a redirect. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Move it back for the sake of consistency with the other Washington Park pages at the disambig page. It's just better that way. TheQuandry 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose There's a fairly strong established practice of putting the city in parentheses for parks which need disambiguation; see Category:Parks in Manhattan, and more generally Category:Parks in the United States, for examples. It also helps readers distinguish between neighborhoods named Washington Park (which use a comma) and parks having the same name (which would use parentheses). MisfitToys 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Category:Parks in the United States is in your favor 3-2, Category:Parks in Chicago is 4-4 excluding the one in question and Category:Parks in Manhattan is 7-1 in your favor. You may be right. I will see where consensus goes. There may be an applicable policy page that someone knows about. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose - the "name, city" form is completely nonstandard. --Yath 04:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Per Yath and MisfitToys, the park should follow conventions of other parks where possible. There could be naming conventions of some sort at WikiProject Protected Areas that could possibly be transferred to regular old parks. Nearly every specific locale, that needs a more descriptive title, seems to follow the convention which puts the place name in the parenthetical.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Washington Park (Chicago park)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Reasonably well written apart from the penultimate sentence: The plan faced diverse opposition among which are those that note Washington Park's listing on the National Register of Historic Places cannot survive this Olympic plan. This is very poorly written. Would also suggest that this section be integrated into the section above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref #19 [1] is a dead link

   Other references check out, assume GF for off-line sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   Major contributors and projects have been notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   OK, all sorted now, I made some more copy-edits. Keep GA listing, thanks for your work and also thanks to SuomiFinland. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed the concerns above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article could benefit from either a map, diagram, or aerial view. This is not always possible. If only non-free images or maps are available, possible a link could be added at the end of the article under Outside Links. The one sentence paragraphs in the history section are also not to be encouraged but sometimes unavoidable. The Olympic bid section has signs of dementia having mentioned Rio twice twice. :p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Map added and text revised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Washington Park (Chicago park). 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/20080516072057/http://www.historicdistricts.com/IL/Cook/districts.html to http://www.historicdistricts.com/IL/Cook/districts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019072642/http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2006/09/21/new_plan_for_olympic_stadium.php to http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2006/09/21/new_plan_for_olympic_stadium.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)