Jump to content

Talk:South Side, Chicago/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The citation needed tags need to be addressed or the article will be quick-failed. Please address them before another editor reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article meets the Good Article criteria, but cannot be listed until two issues are met. First, is the aforementioned 'citation needed' tag (there's one remaining). Second, the use of a left-justified and right-justified image at the end of the article is very awkward, and make the sections look strange there (parks & popular culture). It might be better to put both of these at the right side, and change the image size so that they're both identical. Also, it could help if the Chicago marathon had some context within the article itself.

Let me know when these issues are addressed. Dr. Cash 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to address these issues personally and post it at WP:CHIDISCUSS for other members to make editorial contributions. If you don't hear from us earlier please allow the full 7 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from rebooted FAC being addressed

  • New comments
  • In addition to being highly ranked, the University of Chicago has had 16 Nobel Prizes awarded to persons of research or on faculty at the university at the time of the award announcement, placing it 6th amongst U.S. institutions. Why "amongst"? That sounds archaic. IIRC, "among" means the same thing (at least in American English). Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Despite the numerous educational institutions, the South Side has relatively few highly educated residents outside of the Hyde Park neighborhood (the Hyde Park community area and the southern half of the Kenwood community area) and the Beverly community area. Do we have a ref explaining that the Hyde Park neighborhood includes part of Kenwood? I'm still uneasy about this sentence in general, because 1) it's based on your interpretation of a map (ie, OR) and 2) it kinda suggests that people in other community areas are stupid. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hyde Park the neighborhood extends to 47th Street, but this is entirely class-based, so the eductional level description is a tautology. Rephrasing it is not a problem. What it says is true; there is a clustering of the highly educated, and yes, this means that residents of the other areas are less well educated. Speciate 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Green tickY reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speciate (talk • contribs) 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there's more I could find, but I'll stop for now. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:United States communities with African American majority populations

There is some contention whether South Side belongs in Category:United States communities with African American majority populations because it is not a census-designated place. It is not clear to me that only census-designated place belong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also not clear that the South Side would qualify to be in that category. The South Side of Chicago is not an official community. There is no way to determine it without original research. It's debatable also what communities qualify as south side. On this page, some west side neighborhoods are referenced as if they are on the south side. Many people also include the nearby suburbs when they reference the South Side of Chicago. 99.140.164.99 (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge_proposal

I believe that Chicago Southland and South Side (Chicago) mean the same thing. If so there should be one unified article. I believe this is the proper location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

They refer to different things. The Southland is a suburban region: [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The statement "Chicago's reputation for political corruption stems from tolerance of vices such as prostitution." is a subjective judgment that seems based on opinion, especially the description of prostitution as a "vice". The statement should be rewritten or omitted. h3h (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the citation from the Encyclopedia of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The encyclopedia entry you cite hedges by enclosing the word "vice" in quotation marks, indicating its subjectivity. Carrying that treatment over seems prudent, at the least, given the subjective nature of the claim. h3h (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

It seems to me that this article takes a positive slant on the current state of the South Side. Some neighborhoods (e.g. Englewood) here are crumbling, crime-infested places, and the article hardly even alludes to these problem areas. In terms of the current, non-historical information, the article is very Hyde-Park-centric. I think it needs maps of say unemployment and crime rates to give an accurate representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.188.150 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-ops

The Hyde Park Co-op closed a couple of years ago. You might want to revisit that part of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The term co-op in this case isn't a reference to the former grocery store/produce market, it's a type of housing referred to as a co-op, and those definitely are in existence in HP (I used to rent from a friend who owned a unit in a co-op on Woodlawn). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Issues

This article would not be featured by today's standards. Some paragraphs are unsourced, and shouldn't the history section be separated by time period and not arts, demographics, etc? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused... by 'today's standards', what exactly are you saying? It is a feature article today.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There are quite a few dead links in the citations listed also; I voted for it to run as TFA, but those should probably be fixed.--Chimino (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I mean, if it was at FAC today it would not pass. I see small prose and grammar errors in addition to unreferenced sentences and paragraphs. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

For what reason was the reference to Moby removed via reversion? SirAcidCasualty (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone mind if I add it?SirAcidCasualty (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Why doesn't this article have an infobox? {{Infobox settlement}} would be the one to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No answer, so I'll add one later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

As this has had multiple maintenance tags for a long time, no one is maintaining this. This should be FAR'd soon if this is not remedied.PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Prostitution and Gangs on the South Side

No one knows the South Side better than a person born and raised there. Granted that people's opinions about my birthplace can be negative at times, but I refuse to let mistruths or inaccuracies continue on this page. Prostitution stretched throughout Chicago especially on Rush Street downtown in the '80s. The writers mentioned the Levee which was located at the intersection of Cermak Road and Michigan Avenue in the city's Near South Side NOT the South Side. Review your maps!! The mention of the Levee is on the wrong page and should exist on the Near South Side page. If you can find a historical truth of a prostitution ring on the South Side then I will let it go. Right now it is inaccurate.

As far as the gang activity under the Demographics section, please reference the definition of Demographics below.

Demographics as defined from Dictionary.com - a single vital or social statistic of a human population, as the number of births or deaths.

Gang activity is clearly NOT a demographic and does not qualify under this definition. Also, another valid point is that the US Census will track death in a community but not gang activity. As a result, gang activity is not a demographic.

"All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." RereChiTown 18:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition and Boundaries

It seems very strange to me -- and more importantly inconsistent with the definition currently given in the lede -- to define the "South Side" as somehow excluding the Near South Side. The Near South Side is a neighborhood or "community area" on the (near) South Side of Chicago ... hence the name. -- Visviva (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I can argue and say as a Chicagoan that Near South Side means near the south side, exclusive of the south side. The same goes for the Near North Side, exclusive of the north side. Even if you read the Boundary section of the article it starts with "There is some confusion as to where the South Side begins". Thus, it varies according to the cultural perspectives that influence how Chicagoans label sections of the city. To a considerable extent the section is a state of mind thus represents an opinion. One of the rules of wikipedia is that the content shall be verifiable and not be original. Basically, you can't have an opinion on either arguable sides. It can only be supported by facts like a map that separates the south side from downtown (which does not exist since Chicago is separated by communities only). Since they have a page for the Near South Side, Chicago, then that information regarding the Levee is verifiable and should exist on that page based on the designated clear boundaries of the Near South Side. RereChiTown 22:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And I will argue as a Chicagoan (who lives on the South Side), that while the geographic and abstract (i.e. perceived) definitions of the city are sometimes at odds, both historically and geographically speaking the tract in question is part of the South Side. You can argue whatever angle you would like to, but Wikipedia isn't the place for re-districting the city simply because it doesn't jibe with your perception. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm with User:Ryecatcher773, also as a Chicagoan. The only place that's ever been not on the South, West or North Sides to me was the Loop. (I'm starting to accept "East Side" as a subgroup of the South Side.) That said, I'm moving this discussion out of the "Prostitution and Gangs" section. --~E$ (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:South Side, Chicago/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'll be glad to take this review. I'll start with a close readthrough of the article, noting any issues here I can't immediately fix myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

Some initial comments. Sorry I didn't subdivide these into section as I went, I didn't expect the list to end up so long. I'm about halfway through the article.

  • Two mild formatting problems that I'm having in Chrome (though not Firefox) in looking at this page:
  • "Archer Heights, a Polish enclave along Archer Avenue, which leads toward Midway Airport, is located on the Southwest Side of the city, as is Beverly-Morgan Park (#72, 75), home to a large concentration of Irish Americans." overlaps with the Midway airport image box.
  • "Vee-Jay, the largest black-owned label before Motown Records, was among the post-World War II companies that formed "Record Row" on Cottage Grove between 47th and 50th Streets" -- goes off the right margin of the page, and keeps going, forcing me to scroll right to read it. Any idea what might be causing these? I haven't encountered this issue before.
  • I have this open in six browsers Firefox, Chrome, MSIE, Opera, Safari, and Netscape Navigator. I don't see the first problem. I view on high resolution (about 1600 wide). What width are you viewing this in? I am seeing the second issue in a different paragraph (but only in Chrome and not the other 5 browsers).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Odd. I wouldn't worry about it then. My own screen res is at 1366. What's strange is I can't remember seeing this problem before, though I often open dozens of Wikipedia pages a day; not sure what's causing the glitch here. I don't see anything unusual in the code. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Although it has a reputation for being poor or crime-infested,[7][8] the reality is more varied" -- though crime and a "gritty reputation" are mentioned in the lead and novels section, respectively, the article doesn't appear to really cover this yet. There's a paragraph on gangs, but the 3.5 million Google results for South Side Chicago crime (and its reputation for it) suggest to me that this might be worth a full subsection; there's no shortage of sources.
  • "Some other neighborhoods stayed relatively safe for a big city." -- As an evaluation, needs a citation.
  • The paragraph on gangs mentions a turn toward community activism in the 1960s, but omits the turn back to drug trafficking in the 1970s mentioned in the same source, leaving the odd impression that the gangs left crime and ceased to be a threat; this might be clarified from this source or another.
  • "The South Side covers 60% of the city's land area, with a higher ratio of single-family homes and larger sections zoned for industry than the rest of the city" -- has been marked as citation needed since Nov.
  • "After the Civil War freed the millions of slaves, during Reconstruction black southerners migrated to Chicago and caused the African American population to nearly quadruple from 4,000 to 15,000 between 1870 and 1890" -- integrate or expand one-sentence paragraph.
  • The first four paragraphs of the history section appear to be jumping in chronology quite a bit. 1840s immigration, black expansion after WWII, then back to black immigration in 1870, then further back to 1850 incorporation, then to 1900-1945 black immigration.
  • "Later, during the tenure" -- is it possible to be more specific with timeframe here--a year or range of years?
  • "In the late 20th century the South Side had among the poorest housing conditions in the United States" -- needs citation.
  • "black or African American" -- I'd suggest consistently using "black" or "African American" throughout the article, but it introduces a level of confusion here to present them as alternatives. (Particularly when the previous sentence only used "African American")
  • "Hyde Park is home to the University of Chicago, as well as the South Side's largest Jewish population, centered on Chicago's oldest synagogue, the Chicago Landmark KAM Isaiah Israel." -- expand or integrate one-sentence paragraph.
  • "It was broadcast on Chicago's CBS affiliate" -- this seems like a fairly trivial detail, particularly if this is no longer happening.
  • "The parade was said to be the largest Irish neighborhood St. Patrick's celebration in the world outside of Dublin, Ireland" -- it would be good to make it clear who said this in the sentence. (An organizer? A city official?) Unfortunately, the source is a dead link.
  • " the second largest parade in the United States " -- is it possible to find a stronger source than local news that this is the second-largest parade in the US?
  • [4] -- does not appear to me to be a reliable source
  • "Private sector redevelopment is occurring rapidly." -- citation needed; also, consider specifying the year this information is coming from.
  • "It has become an increasingly popular destination for both tourists and locals alike" -- citation needed
  • "The South Side offers many outdoor amenities, such as miles of public lakefront parks and beaches, as it borders Lake Michigan on its eastern side." -- this article has a subtle promotional tone running through it that worries me. The crime that the South Side is nationally famous for is strongly de-emphasized: the lead all but says it isn't true, statistics are never given, and even the paragraph on gangs greatly downplays the threat. In contrast, amenities are emphasized, the city "boasts" of this and that, and many things flatly are claimed to be the biggest/best in the nation from minor sources. I don't know that this specific statement needs work, but I wanted to point out the general trend.
  • "The Union Stock Yard, Chicago is ..." quotation needs citation.
  • " is one of the nation's best medical centers" -- I'd suggest more clearly attributing this evaluation, and giving a clearer representation of what it said. Does this look fair to you? "In 2007, U.S. News & World Report ranked the University of Chicago Medical Center one of the top 20 hospitals in America for digestive disorders (#6), cancer (#7), endocrinology (#11), and neurology and neurosurgery (#14)."
  • "University of Chicago Lab School, affiliated with the University of Chicago, is a private school located there" -- integrate or expand one sentence paragraph.
Great, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it's been about a week, I thought I'd check in here for an update. I notice you still haven't had a chance to respond to a lot of the above (which in itself only takes us about halfway through the article). Do you still want to continue? (You seemed a bit ambivalent above.) My own inclination is to close this one at this point so you can go over it at your leisure for things like POV-tweaking and statements/quotations needing citation. If you can get to this in the next few days, though, so we can proceed to the second half of the article, I'd be glad to continue. Up to you. In either case, thanks for your work on this one so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't believe I can do all of these. However, there are many more that I can do. I apologize that a lot of my WP time has been spent editing images taht I took at at basketball game on the 26th. I took 1182 pictures. So far, I have discarded about 800 of them. If you look at my contributions on commons you will see the types of images I have been involved in. When I am watching TV or Xfinity I do a lot of edits that make it seem like I am spending a lot of time when I am just pressing buttons to reformat templates. Right now, I have only gotten a few images properly cropped and added to articles. So the long and the short of it is that I think I could do more, but I won't be able to address all your concerns. Sunday, I will probably knock a few more things off the list. We can reassess at that point or if you wish you can close it down now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, let's take a look in a few days then. Thanks for all the image work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think I have better ways to spend my time on WP. I withdraw this nomination. It is farther away from GA than I thought it was.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for your work so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Dubious population figures

Is the population of the South Side really 752,496 and 93% African-American? The citation doesn't lead anywhere definite, and common sense suggests that the population is more heavily white, Hispanic, and Asian. I can't find a citation, but a little analysis of the 2010 census figures might provide a more accurate estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.78.41 (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd bet that this is related to the fuzziness of boundaries in the article. --~E$ (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"District"

I might be missing something, but seeing the South Side labelled as a "district" makes it sound like there is an official recognition or definition. I'm not aware of such recognition, and I don't see it cited anywhere in the article. I checked the Cities WikiProject and didn't see anything there about a formal "district" classification. I'm not saying that the South Side isn't real or recognized as a geographic unit, just that I've never heard it called a "district" before. ~E$ 14:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik a hanson (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on South Side, 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, 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) 05:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on South Side, 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, 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) 19:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on South Side, 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, 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) 16:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Side,_Chicago/Archive_1&oldid=1214022830"