Talk:Burnham Park (Chicago)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burnham Park (Chicago) 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

Burnham Park (Chicago) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 18, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 13, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 19, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Meigs Field in Chicago, Illinois, sits on the site of Burnham Park (pictured), which was a serious contender to host the United Nations Headquarters?

Current status: Good article

Illinois High‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Mid‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK

Any thoughts on a DYK nomination? Maybe the fact that Burnham Park (Chicago) was a candidate to be the United Nations headquarters. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the UN headquarters would be my recommendation, due to wide recognition of the UN. the new information about the italo balbo monument being a gift of benito mussolini be interesting as a backup given the text on the inscriptions.ChicagoPimp 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Campus

It seems the Museum Campus may technically be in Grant Park (Chicago). Does anyone know for sure? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flicker Promontory Point Photo

Who knows the procedure to correctly license an image from flicker (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kim_scarborough/54167350/ ).? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use that one as is ... just pick {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} from the dropdown box on the upload page. Daniel Case 03:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom on hold

This can probably be passed if the following issues are addressed:

Wildly inconsistent verb tenses. In the history section, we read that things mostly "were". But sometimes they "are" and a few times they "will be". I suspect this comes from working from a cut-and-paste of the timeline found on the Chicago Park District page credited as a source. In that case, some serious rewriting needs to be done to eliminate the copyvio.
- started but I am not close to the original material so would rather that someone closer to the ground finished it so I do not adjust material incorrectly.11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs)
- Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metric. All the measurements I saw were in English units. But people around the world will be reading this article ... they need to see units they're familiar with. Done18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy organization of key information. A key asset of any park is its area. How big is it? Yet in the intro I read about how long it is ... interesting to know, but not the most important fact. Finally, way down in the next-to-last graf or so, I read that it's ... 598 acres (2.4 km², by the way). That should be in the intro and the infobox (and congrats for using it; {{infobox park}} is either not used where it should be or used on where {{infobox protected area}} should be). Done18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Some missing citations and other information. The whole 1860-1890 section is missing footnotes save the very last one. I know this usually means the entire graf came from the same source. But this is too much information to leave hanging like this. My suggestion: break it into a couple of smaller grafs with similarly separate footnotes. Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We read in the intro the exact date (is this really important?)taken out see edit summary - this part Done11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) the park was renamed for Burnham, but then the infobox suggests it had had another name for the previous seven years. What was it? Do we know? (Given the level of historical detail in the article and the profusion of information about the United States of America's second-largest city at that time, I would be very surprised if we don't know what that park was called.
Also, the Streeterville link doesn't really explain the "peculiar history" (and I question why that detail needs to be in the intro). Done19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not fatal to a GA, but a worthwhile suggestion anyway, is making some of the pictures larger. This is a park ... show it off! Done11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe some serious work with the article can address these issues. I will check back in a couple of days. Daniel Case 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Tony buckled down and did the job. I took care of the one remaining bit of future tense in the history that I saw. I'll go to GAC and pass it now ... be back in a few to put the green disc on. Daniel Case

Just one more suggestion ... now that we have warm weather again, go out and take another picture of Soldier Field and the monument, if possible, in the sun and bright blue sky. That picture is hard to make out at that size, and just looking at it makes me start turning my collar up. Brrr! Daniel Case 04:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

It has been proposed that Burnham Park be renamed and moved to Burnham Park (disambiguation). Please discuss at Talk:Burnham Park.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama?

He landed at this park at 10am in February for Valentines Day. This is now Obama Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.229.222 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

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

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

The lead mentions "forever open, clear and free". If this is a quote, it needs a source. Also, anything in the lead should be mentioned within the article as well. A few more sentences in the lead would be beneficial to cover more of the details of the article.
I copied some text I have added to other related articles. It should be O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't necessary for GA, but I tagged multiple free images to be moved to Wikimedia Commons. If you have an account there, consider moving the images over so other language Wikipedias can benefit from them.
I am not an image guy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the work in the "Morgan Shoal" section already concluded or is it still ongoing. Add some dates (as well as any updates) to clarify for readers.
Oddly, the only date I can find is the date the plan was first adopted by the park district. I do not know if it is complete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found some information suggesting it is still in progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some of the citations only include a title and access date. Citations should also include author, date, publisher, etc. Consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET to assist with formatting.~~
I did what I could.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. I went through the article and made a few more changes, please review them. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Burnham Park (Chicago). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burnham Park (Chicago). 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/20110708201147/http://www.cpdit01.com/resources/brochures/pdf/Lakefront%20Trail%20Map.pdf to http://www.cpdit01.com/resources/brochures/pdf/Lakefront%20Trail%20Map.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]