Jump to content

Talk:Washington Park Subdivision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWashington Park Subdivision has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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.
Good topic starWashington Park Subdivision is part of the Washington Park, Chicago series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 24, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 9, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Washington Park Subdivision land owners signed 20-year restrictive covenants excluding renting to African Americans, leading to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Hansberry v. Lee?
Current status: Good article

GA failed

[edit]

This article has failed its GAC nomination as it does not meet all of the GA criteria. The article has only a few sources and needs further expansion to reach GA. Consider getting a peer review to see what other information should be included or research further information for the article. Keep up the good work and try again later. --Nehrams2020 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Park Subdivision/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)

Initial review by Drilnoth (talk · contribs)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The prose needs a good copyedit... I made a few changes, but quite a bit of it is just kind of unclear or the sentence structure is awkward. I'd recommend either going through it line-by-line or making a request at WP:GOCE.
    I just did a once over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I'm concerned about the reliability of [1]. It looks like an encyclopedia... a tertiary source, and generally discouraged. If you can find better citations for those points, that would be great.  Done
    The Encyclopedia of Chicago is an extremely well-accepted source here on WP. Prairie Avenue and South Side (Chicago) both rely heavily on it. I have dozens of GAs that rely on it. It has never even been questioned before. Instead of having a few authors and editors each article is compiled by the specialist on that topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay; sounds good. I just hadn't heard of it before and it had "Encyclopedia" in the name, so I just wondered about reliability. Anyway, consider this resolved. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It seems focused mostly on pre 1948. Washington Park has history 1948 to now. The 60s produced notable activists and leaders through churches and TWO (which is where I had contact). Maybe the title could have added "the Early Years" or similar to accurately describe the scope of the article. I'd love to see a follow on article that describes it when I've known it.
  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:
    I'm putting this review on hold for seven days for copyediting. Overall, I found the article to be nicely written and comprehensive, with good sourcing.
    I'm passing this now; the copyedit resolved most of my concerns. Good work, and I hope all goes well on the Good topic! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington Park Subdivision. 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) 11:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington Park Subdivision. 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) 17:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Park_Subdivision&oldid=1212337458"