Talk:Burnham Park (Chicago)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
Good article Burnham Park (Chicago) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 19, 2007.
May 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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.
  • 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.Y 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).Y 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. Y Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    We read in the intro the exact date (is this really important?)taken out see edit summary - this partY 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).Y 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!Y 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)

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)

[edit] 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)