Talk:Ping Tom Memorial Park/GA1

Ping Tom Memorial Park GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I will be reviewing the article; but in all honesty, the article doesn't require a lot of improvements. I've checked the prose, refs, edit history and images; they're fine! I only found a couple of spots we should fiddle with... so let's take care of those, and we're good to go:

In the History section, add the image of Ping Tom, the caption reading to the effect "Ping Tom (19xx - 19xx), developer, yada yada. The park was named in his memory in 19xx." Your writing discretion, naturally :) Also, after the final sentence in this section:

"With the support of Park District Commissioner Raymond Lee, the Park District approved the proposal to purchase the land, along with an additional 6 acres that extended along the river northward to 16th Street in 1991."

let's relocate this paragraph from Design and construction, so it will follow the sentence above in History:

"During a Chinatown Chamber of Commerce meeting held in March 1998, the Riverside Park Advisory Council suggested renaming the park in honor of Ping Tom. The request was approved on August 3, 1998, and the park was renamed Ping Tom Memorial Park. The park was dedicated and officially opened by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley during an ceremony on October 2, 1999. In 2005, the CADC and friends of the Tom family commissioned sculptor Liao Huilana to create a bronze bust of Ping Tom. The bust was dedicated and installed at the park on October 22, 2005."

Additionally, in between those two segments, there needs to be a new tie-in sentence/paragraph regarding Ping's death in 1995. Otherwise, we jump from 1991 to 1998... with little mention of Ping's legacy other than the erroneous impression that the park was intended to be named after Ping because his corporation began the project. We cannot allow that to be implied, albeit unlikely or unintended :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks so much for the review! I've been waiting for awhile, so I'm glad to be working on the article again. Secondly, give me a day or two to dig up some reliable information on Ping Tom to add into the article as you suggested. Thanks! --Torsodog^Talk 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry :) Take as much time as you'd like! Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has the information been added? What else is needed for the article to be GA status? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm...you added an image and wrote 'This is Ping Tom'... but the entirity of the changes haven't been met. The needed additions are described above; I'll give you all some more time :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. If changes aren't made soon though to fix the issues it should probably be failed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sounding so harsh :) I hadn't noticed your sig; I thought you were the nominator saying "I'm ready!" btw, I'll give it another month before failing, if necessary. Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologize to everyone that these changes took so long. Good, usable information regarding Ping Tom the man is surprisingly hard to find, but I think I added enough to have it all make sense. Please look it over and let me know what you think! --Torsodog^Talk 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! We pass... yay! It was nice working with you, and I absolutely have no problem with the amount of time it took :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Ping Tom Memorial Park passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass