User talk:Ncsjfreed/sandbox

Forest--- I found material from another Edmonton park, and inserted it.

is this recommended? how do I credit that author? how do I know I'm not compiling misinformation? --Ncsjfreed (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hi there, looks like you're still fleshing out the content. I just made a few minor edits to the page. The section that talks about the Pool - it is odd to start that part with the park's former name (perhaps move to the introduction). I also found a need to take a block of text from another source, so I just sited the whole paragraph in an indented block. Not sure if this is best practice, but wanted to make sure the credit was identified. Great visual additions! I tried looking for more content sections to add without any luck. There isn't much about this park on the web other that what you've already captured... Stan mact (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I like where the article is going and how it fits "into" existing information about the park's location. Your use of images are also a very nice touch. The headings seem clear and consistent and neatly lay out the content. Would you perhaps consider changing the title "Attractions" to "points of interest" or something like that? I only ask as the article might be seen to be too promotional (not sure -- just an idea).

I appreciate the "more work here" notes you have included. I think if you flesh those out you will indeed have a solid article.

Just a couple of other ideas:

you might want to put a wiki link on your reference to the queen
you could include a bit of a brief on how the attractions bring people to the park or, perhaps, other special events

All-in-all a great article! Dazzpedian (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great updates! I had a thought as I was looking at your article title: perhaps it should be renamed "Queen Elizabeth park (Edmonton)" so at to assist with disambiguation? Also, and what I find time consuming to fix, was to include punctuation before the references (I am still finding fix ups in my article...). I hope it was okay, as I know your article is still in progress, but I put a period in the bodies of water section. Too bold? ;) Dazzpedian (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review?

Hi Ncsjfreed! Would you take a look at my first wiki article attempt? It is also on my user page but this look should take you right there [[1]] -- Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazzpedian (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments- all appreciated. I think I will change it to points of interest, as there is no soapbox around here for me to climb up on! Will be pleased to look at your article!--Ncsjfreed (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive

A great article, provides a diversity of information regarding the QE park and its surrounding area. I really like your images ... it adds to context for the reader. I like the way you have summarized the attractions & landmarks in Edmonton at the end of the article, great for visitors to the city!--4tiggy (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good overview

I think you've made a really good start, the article tone seems nicely NPOV to me - which seems to be a tough nut to crack - and you've done good work with wikifying and referencing. Additions like maps, photo, list at end - very good. As to your question about misinformation...I guess that's always going to be one of the challenges. You might want to hunt up an external source regarding the forest question. I'm not sure about citation, or appropriateness, and haven't really seen anything helpful that I can think of.Prairiedog2011 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]