This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington) 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 4, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the installation of a garbage-eating sculpture in
Riverfront Park caused an uproar from goat farmers, concerned that it perpetuated the false stereotype that
goats eat anything? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added some information about Riverfront Park located in Spokane Washington. It is a staple of the park (one of many) and I felt it deserved some recognition of the Riverfront Park Wikipedia page. I attempted to upload my own photo of the wagon multiple times but failed. The system would just load relentlessly with no fruition. I got some information about the "Big Red Wagon" from the Riverfront Park website and cited that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblume09 ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
The Squirrel Conspiracy (
talk)
21:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
5x expanded by Jdubman ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Its location immediately north of the downtown core also creates a distinct urban edge, similar to edges created by other urban parks such as Grant and Millenium Parks in Chicago and Central Park in New York City.There are other paragraphs which also don't have sources.
Hook eligibility:
this [[Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington)|urban park]]
are unlikely to make it to the Main Page in that stateImage: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
@
Jdubman: Great work on the article, there are just a few things to address.
epicgenius (
talk)
03:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review
Epicgenius. Great point on the hook format - the proposed revisions look good and I've updated the primary hook per your suggested format. I've also went back through and added more references where they were sparse and believe the issue is now fixed. I would appreciate another look at it. Thanks again.
Jdubman (
talk)
04:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Larry Hockett ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This nomination has been sitting around long enough. I'll take a look at it. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I am now noticing that the nominator has been inactive for a bit. I'll leave the feedback here and will continue if there is a response in a reasonable amount of time. I usually run through an article at the end of a review and do some grammar cleanup myself, so I am more concerned at this point about the sourcing issues or the wording issues where the meaning isn't clear. Thanks to the nominator for the work on this entry! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 16:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It appears that there has been no response to the review feedback after ten days. Since there are 531 Wikipedia articles waiting to be reviewed, I think it makes the most sense to close this one for now. The entry can always be nominated again in the future when there may be editors ready and willing to address any feedback from that review. Thanks to the editors who have already worked to produce a high-quality article. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: RickyCourtney ( talk · contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The article is well written. I went ahead and made some minor grammar corrections. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | While the article has a few deviations from the MOS, the lead sections, layout and words to watch are all spot on. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Article has a robust references section and copius inline citations |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
UPDATE 1/5/22: These have been corrected. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article is well cited. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Clean report from Earwig's Copyvio Detector. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Coverage is broad without straying out of scope. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article is rather long and detailed, but with so much going on in this park today and with it's rich history, it seems necessary. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is without red-flags of non-neutrality. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No signs of any recent edit warring. Page continues to receive the sort of normal edits I would expect to see. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images have proper free-content licenses except for the logo which has a valid fair use rationale provided. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | This article borders on having too many images. One thing I noticed right away is that there are at least 5 images that prominently feature the clock tower. UPDATE 1/5/22: This has been corrected. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Overall, this feels like a good article to me. It's a well-written overview of a really interesting place. I've visited the park once in my life, so it was really interesting personally to learn so much about it's origins. After the above items are addressed, this will be ready to pass. UPDATE 1/5/22: With corrections made, this article can pass. Great work, all! |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington) 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 4, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the installation of a garbage-eating sculpture in
Riverfront Park caused an uproar from goat farmers, concerned that it perpetuated the false stereotype that
goats eat anything? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added some information about Riverfront Park located in Spokane Washington. It is a staple of the park (one of many) and I felt it deserved some recognition of the Riverfront Park Wikipedia page. I attempted to upload my own photo of the wagon multiple times but failed. The system would just load relentlessly with no fruition. I got some information about the "Big Red Wagon" from the Riverfront Park website and cited that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblume09 ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
The Squirrel Conspiracy (
talk)
21:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
5x expanded by Jdubman ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Its location immediately north of the downtown core also creates a distinct urban edge, similar to edges created by other urban parks such as Grant and Millenium Parks in Chicago and Central Park in New York City.There are other paragraphs which also don't have sources.
Hook eligibility:
this [[Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington)|urban park]]
are unlikely to make it to the Main Page in that stateImage: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
@
Jdubman: Great work on the article, there are just a few things to address.
epicgenius (
talk)
03:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review
Epicgenius. Great point on the hook format - the proposed revisions look good and I've updated the primary hook per your suggested format. I've also went back through and added more references where they were sparse and believe the issue is now fixed. I would appreciate another look at it. Thanks again.
Jdubman (
talk)
04:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Larry Hockett ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This nomination has been sitting around long enough. I'll take a look at it. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I am now noticing that the nominator has been inactive for a bit. I'll leave the feedback here and will continue if there is a response in a reasonable amount of time. I usually run through an article at the end of a review and do some grammar cleanup myself, so I am more concerned at this point about the sourcing issues or the wording issues where the meaning isn't clear. Thanks to the nominator for the work on this entry! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 16:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It appears that there has been no response to the review feedback after ten days. Since there are 531 Wikipedia articles waiting to be reviewed, I think it makes the most sense to close this one for now. The entry can always be nominated again in the future when there may be editors ready and willing to address any feedback from that review. Thanks to the editors who have already worked to produce a high-quality article. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: RickyCourtney ( talk · contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The article is well written. I went ahead and made some minor grammar corrections. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | While the article has a few deviations from the MOS, the lead sections, layout and words to watch are all spot on. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Article has a robust references section and copius inline citations |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
UPDATE 1/5/22: These have been corrected. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article is well cited. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Clean report from Earwig's Copyvio Detector. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Coverage is broad without straying out of scope. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article is rather long and detailed, but with so much going on in this park today and with it's rich history, it seems necessary. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is without red-flags of non-neutrality. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No signs of any recent edit warring. Page continues to receive the sort of normal edits I would expect to see. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images have proper free-content licenses except for the logo which has a valid fair use rationale provided. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | This article borders on having too many images. One thing I noticed right away is that there are at least 5 images that prominently feature the clock tower. UPDATE 1/5/22: This has been corrected. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Overall, this feels like a good article to me. It's a well-written overview of a really interesting place. I've visited the park once in my life, so it was really interesting personally to learn so much about it's origins. After the above items are addressed, this will be ready to pass. UPDATE 1/5/22: With corrections made, this article can pass. Great work, all! |