Talk:Bradenton Riverwalk

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bradenton Riverwalk article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bradenton Riverwalk was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 11, 2018	Peer review	Not reviewed
September 10, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 10, 2018.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Bradenton Riverwalk area was originally nicknamed "The Sand Pile"?

Current status: Former good article nominee

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Not quite a peer review

I noticed this article in the list of candidates for "good article". Doing a GA review is way above my pay grade but I noticed a couple of things that may need attention:

'the downtown' presumably has a local meaning, please explain to the world.
is the 'postcards' exhibition permanent? because if it is just one in a program, this needs to be said and cited. Is it all year round? Beware of falling foul of wp:RECENT

I hope this is useful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead is good. In 'History", paragraph should be split into two or maybe 3 for readability. Good splitting point would be 'The park'? Also, it should be clarified that the park in question is one that the riverwalk resides in? I'm actually not clear on this actually reading the article - are there bits of the park separate from the riverwalk? Are there parts of the Riverwalk not in the park? Clarify that relationship. Add "a" before "splash pad" in 'Features' Last paragraph of 'Features' has some awkward phrasing - rework first sentence especially.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass. No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some concern here. 5 of the sources are from Realize Bradenton, which helps run the riverwalk. Another source is the architectural firm which built it. I understand there may be few sources available for this topic but it would help to focus on the material from sources not so close to the topic. Newspaper sources are better - see some additional below. Under 'Features', the bit about the Americans for the Arts impact calculator - is this reliable? Phrasing also falls very close to the source's words.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Partially assessed. Would be good to check against several of the Realize Bradenton sources especially - some of these phrasings seem perilously close to the source phrasings.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems that expansion of the riverwalk has begun - this should be added: https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190403/bradenton-riverwalk-extension-to-begin-at-mineral-spring-park https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190612/bradenton-endorses-master-plan-for-riverwalk-extension https://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article228825294.html
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Possible issue with neutrality, though minor - see comments above.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thank you for the review, Ganesha811! I'm currently making revisions to the article and I'm hoping to get them added by the end of the weekend. Dorian has been messing up my workflow this past week. – The Grid (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid, sounds good! Stay safe. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811, I won't be able to fix up the info for now. Instead of letting this hang beyond 7 days, you can fail the GA nomination. Thanks again for reviewing the article for me! – The Grid (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid, okay! Be sure to re-nominate it when you feel all the necessary improvements have been made. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]