Talk:Naperville, Illinois

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Koalafied1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Booster-ish?

With phrases like "globally reknown schools", "enormous growth of high-tech companies", and "the Riverwalk is known as Naperville's 'Crown Jewel' according to the Naperville Riverwalk Foundation", parts of the article seems a little booster-ish. I've tried to tune-down the rhetoric.Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Naperville Content Deleted

How come you deleted my post? I am putting factual information which I compiled as stats as well as listing some of the prominent subdivisionsMikemccurry (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Mikemccurry

Well, there's some rather blatent problems with WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:COI. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the picture on the top of the page

Do you think it's a little bland to post a picture of city hall in the wintertime as the first picture that people view when they read the article? What about if there was a picture of downtown Naperville in the summer? It will feature Naperville as the bustling, lively city with people on the streets shopping, that it is. I can definitely take pictures and email them to someone for review? Just my thoughts on it. Svengoolie (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a suitable pic that meets inclusion criteria (and looks nice), by all means be WP:BOLD and add it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Direction from Chicago

Contrary to the reversion, it technically is west southwest from what is usually considered to be the center of Chicago. But, agreeing with the reversion, I think that simply "west" is a better way to say it. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen a citation that categorizes west-by-southwest suburbs of Chicago as a distinct category. if they do exist, they are rare. Suburbs along the I-88 corridor are typically refereed to as West or Far-West suburbs. Google search for 'west suburbs of Chicago'. As for directionality, downtown Naperville is directly west of the Chicago neighborhoods of Hide Park and Englewood. But we are in agreement over the text so.... Dkriegls (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, simply "west" is the more common and thus the best way to say it. Even though the north-south center of Naperville is approx 75th street (75 blocks south of the "center" of Chicago) North8000 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

West 75th in Naperville is directly west of east 75th in the South Shore neighborhood of Chicago. Though, north-south center's are not typically used by map makers to determine directionality of large geographic locations like cities. Imagine someone claiming Wisconsin was north-west of Illinois because of the position of their East-West axis. I also find it curious that you compare Naperville's north-south center to Chicago's downtown. Chicago's north-south center is 37th street, roughly 20 blocks north of downtown Naperville. Anyways, I think we are violating Talk page guidlines now since we are in agreement about the text. Cheers and good chatting with ya :) Dkriegls (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Naperville, Illinois. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224061904/http://www.napersettlement.org/visitorinfo/naperville_history.htm to http://www.napersettlement.org/visitorinfo/naperville_history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130180028/http://www.cod.edu/RegionalCtrs/Nap_Reg.htm to http://www.cod.edu/regionalctrs/nap_reg.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222234504/http://www.naperville203.org/schools/LinkstoSchools.asp to http://www.naperville203.org/schools/LinkstoSchools.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927220229/http://www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=152 to http://www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=152

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) 11:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Moved inappropriate content

Moved content about Dexter Graves and his memorial at Graceland Cemetery in Chicago to there; his only connection to this article was traveling on same ship to Chicago. Also moved reference to Spinner 2012 book about train accident to section "Further reading" - it is self-published and thus is not a Reliable Source.Parkwells (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Good move on Graves. But I think it would be better to leave Spinner as a source. The wiki rule is about presence of the text, there's no rule about presence of the source. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Are you trying to say that self-published books are reliable sources, or that any old source will do if it verifies the fact? John from Idegon (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that the rule is that in order for the text to remain (if challenged) it must be supported by a WP:RS. A source that is not a wp:rs (such as a self-published book) can not be used to fulfill that requirement. There is no rule that a source that is not a wp:rs can't be present in an article. It can be present, it just doesn't /won't fulfill the sourcing requirement if the text is challenged. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Flag Design

As of a January 7th revision to this article there has been a featured flag next to the seal in the Infobox. In the manner that it is presented and without any context this flag is seeming the official flag of the City of Naperville. However this flag is not the official flag and is a community accepted design. Of the many reasons why this community flag was created one was the the official design is Copyrighted by the City of Naperville. What should happen to the community flag? Should it have context or should it be replaced or removed? Koalafied1 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Koalafied1: I removed the flag from the article, per the source cited. If it's not the official flag, it shouldn't be in the infobox. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Demographics Overhaul

At present a large portion of the demographic section is uncited. With some searching into prior versions I was able to find the citations to a now nonexistent part of the US census bureau website from 2006. faced with the option to add in citations and present old information or to entirely update the section; I have chosen to update the section. This is being posted since it will be a reasonably significant change. When the information from the 2020 census is available it will be reworked again Koalafied1 (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

within the recently edited demographic section there are three main references 26, 28 and 29 the census bureau, CMAP and a website processing census data. The article prior to my edits took only from the census bureau but was able to extract more data than i was able from similar parts of the bureau website. The CMAP data has the potential to fill in the missing parts from the more recent census information however it would decrease the amount of data coming from the census bureau. presently the updated data takes from source 29 which is a processor of census data. the census bureau is typically the Gold Standard when it comes to demographic data in the US. Should we move away from the bureau in this article to provide a more detailed view of the community? Is it preferred to have the greatest available data come from a first hand source as opposed to a second hand source? Koalafied1 (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Koalafied1: I reverted several of your edits. A consensus of editors have agreed that the US Census should be the primary source of demographic data, per WP:USCITIES. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Montage

Hello fellow wikipedians!

@Nkon21 has changed the infobox photomontage (see:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naperville,_Illinois&oldid=1056697354) to a singular image. If you scroll through this article, you can see it is already filled with illustrations. I have tried to make a compromise with this user, by editing down the # of photos, but he/she is determined to have 1 photo. I kindly disagree with them, as the article already has enough photos throughout. Plus, the large majority of readers only read the lead, so why not also have a selection of images? There is definitely a purpose to having a photomontage in a infobox, and as Illinois's 4th-5th largest city, It's highly deserving on one. Thoughts? Lectrician2 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO those images should be in the article somewhere. I'm near-neutral on multiple images in the infobox. Single is more common and the smaller ones are too small to see unless you zoom in on them. North8000 (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Even world-class cities such as San Francisco and Vancouver only have a single image in the infobox; being the 4th or 5th largest city in the state does just mean the article needs to have one. I'll respond to the "most people only read the lede" claim that you made with MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says that It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—that is singular image, not images, meaning that all it takes to satisfy the criteria is one image. Unlike Chicago or NYC where there are multiple widespread recognizable landmarks in the city, Naperville does not have that. That single aerial shot of downtown serves the purpose well enough already for this article. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly aware of anything that is world-renowned in Naperville. But generally, internally in Naperville, theses are the "widespread recognizable landmarks". I'm not exactly sure what your issue is with having a photo-montage? It doesn't hurt the article in any way, it only enhances it. Lectrician2 (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Having a bunch of small-sized images in the montage does little to enhance the article, especially if, like you said, the landmarks aren't widely recognized on a larger scale. Images are best used to accompany text in the body where it provides greater detail and explanation to its significance within the community; images in montages does very little to help readers understand why its important. Not to mention that about a half of the article's pageviews come from mobile devices, and having long montages in the infobox can increase page load time and also forces readers to scroll down a lot more. Some articles just don't need montages in their infobox and that's perfectly fine. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:USCITIES specifically has a photomontage in their guidelines. Plus, lets take Winnipeg as a example, it's a featured article, so it must be pretty good. None of these places I recognize, I have never been to Winnipeg. A lot of people who are reading a article relating to a US city, have not been to the place. Hence they would not recognize it. I don't think any of the images on the Winnipeg article are "known on a wider scale" (correct me if I'm wrong). Locally, to Naperville, these are important. It's all about perspective. If you are going to Naperville, these are the important places. If you are going to Winnipeg, those are the important places. Lectrician2 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Want to retain readers ......don't make them scroll through image after image to obtain infomation. Only have them for a scroll or two.DATA...Moxy- 01:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but there is something to be said for the purpose of a photomontage. To correct for this, along with other reasons, as soon as this dispute started, I slimmed down the info-box photomontage to 5 pictures instead of the previous 7. Lectrician2 (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A montage is not required for an article to be promoted to FA. Also, keep in mind that Wiki is not a WP:TOURISTGUIDE, and the sole purpose of the infobox lead image is to ensure readers that they have landed on the correct page (which the single aerial shot, in my opinion, does well—but that can always be changed). Also even with 5 images it does not fix that issue.ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ditch the montage. The images are hard to see, and none of these images are of anything widely known that general readers will recognize. It's irrelevant whether locals will recognize the images, and it's irrelevant whether other articles need or benefit from photo montages. In my opinion this article does not need a photomontage, and it would be better without one. Meters (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

1. I'm currently typing on a 12 inch screen, and I can make out all of the images myself, except for the carillon, it's a bit too dark. So I could remove that, or replace it. Anyways, I can clearly see a church, a water fountain, and a path.
2. Overall, I don't think the purpose of the infobox photo is for people to "instantly recognize it", it's to give a quick glimpse into the article. The infobox photo in my opinion does it't job better when there are multiple photos, hence a montage. Who cares if it's widely known or not? Those are the main "memorable" places in Naperville, I don't see anywhere that it's a requirement for the photo to be widely known throughout the world in order for it to qualify for placement in a infobox. Lectrician2 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the image is only to " ensure readers that they have landed on the correct page". It was my understanding that it was to provide a quick illustration of the subject. Also, to discuss your point about it being Promoted to FA, I agree, but I was just saying that if one of the best articles in the English Wikipedia has it, what's the harm to having it here? Lectrician2 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEADIMAGE clearly states It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. I also don't see anywhere that says that the infobox needs to encompass many different "memorable" landmarks of the area. Like how other editors have suggested already, there is no need for a montage and a single image works best here. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The main photo does give visual confirmation, but the photo-montage goes even further by showing other landmarks in the Naperville Area that could be used to give visual confirmation if the main photo is not recognized. Also, along with giving conformation, the photomontage illustrates the city better as I have stated in previous replies. Lectrician2 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I don't see us reaching a compromise, I'm going to open a RFC. Lectrician2 (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

We edit by consensus. You have no support for using a photo montage. Meters (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok . I'l concede. Lectrician2 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naperville, Illinois/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 08:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Will review sometime in the next week or so. SounderBruce 08:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Done with my first pass. I'll put this on hold, but there's quite a few significant issues (mainly in sourcing) that will take a while to fix. SounderBruce 04:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead & Infobox:

Township: Fixed

Incorporation: I can't find any dates more specific for the year for the settlement or village or city.

Demonym: I added a source to establish use. The notable people is a article in itself.

Zip code: Done

Lead cite: Done

History: Sliced and diced

Better article coverage: Done

Til: Done

Massive: Killed and replaced

Links: Done

History:

Indigenous: Done

Settlers: Sliced and diced

Voyage: Done

Dexter: Dead

Stagecoach: Done

Pre-emption: Done

Reconstruction: Moved to section on Naper settlement

Dunbar: Moved her up a paragraph, and trimmed some fluff.

Dates: Nada, nothing.

Chronological issues: Fixed

Kroehler factory: I'm going to disagree with you on this, it has nothing to do with Naperville's current economy. The company went heads up 40 years ago, its history, but it was also monumental bringing it to the place it is nowadays. I did slim it down though.

YMCA: Sliced and diced, added info to "other"

Train crash: Sliced and diced section, added section on memorial to the train station article instead of parks and rec, as there wasn't anywhere that it would fit in very well.

Added history stuff: Nothing notable I found happened during the wars.

2000's: looking through the chicago tribune and daily herald, the most notable thing I saw was it being ranked a good place to live, and a bunch of routine murders that didn't garner national attentions, essentially, I can't find anything.

Parking: Sliced and diced

Tornado: Sliced and diced

I will continue more editing tommorow morning. Cheers! Lectrician2 (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lectrician2: To make things easier, please reply to points by using a second-level indent (**) under the respective items below. It's harder to keep track if it's done in this section. SounderBruce 09:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll be closing this nomination for now, as it seems there is quite a bit of work to be done before this article is ready to go. It was an admirable first attempt at the process, but I think you should look at existing city GAs and FAs for more inspiration, as well as seek advice from venues such as WP:GOCE and WP:PR. SounderBruce 04:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with this. I was thoroughly underprepared, and this needs a lot more work I now realize. Thanks so much for your hard work in reviewing this. Sea Cow (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• Quite a few sections use bullet point lists that would work better as prose. The entire Media section, for example, could be slimmed down into a few paragraphs.

Lead and infobox

• Township lists could be better organized to reduce the repetition of the county names
• Incorporation dates should use full dates if available
• Demonym is not found elsewhere in the article and not cited; I suggest using it in the Notable people section.
• ZIP Codes should use a ndash instead of a hyphen
• WP:LEADCITE suggests that citations don't need to be present in most leads, and is probably the case here; as it currently stands, it's inconsistent.
• The history paragraph is a bit too long and should be less detailed. For example, the Kroheler, swimming pool, and train sentences are all unnecessary for the lead.
• The rest of the article should also receive some kind of coverage in the lead.
• "dupage river" → "DuPage River"
  • "bands of the dupage river" is also unclear; is this referring to an indigenous group or the river itself?
• "till" should be "until"
• "1960's" should be "1960s"; "massive population increase" should be explained in terms of numbers or toned down to remove "massive"
• "World renowned places" is puffery; "most notably" is weasely
• Links are needed for Moser Tower, the carillon, and the train stations.

History

• Indigenous history of the area should be mentioned first. Were there other names for the area before Naper's arrival?
• List of settlers should be condensed a bit.
• Where did the voyage originate? That would be more relevant than mentioning the "three Great Lakes".
• The aside about Dexter Graves is not relevant to Naperville, as far as I can tell.
• Stagecoach is a single word and should be linked.
• The Pre-Emption House needs a bit of explanation: What is it, and why was it significant?
• Reconstruction should be mentioned in a Historical preservation section instead of breaking the chronological flow here.
• Dunbar does not seem to be a significant enough figure to warrant an entire paragraph.
• Again, exact dates for incorporation would be appreciated if available.
• "Naper's Settlement was incorporated as the Village of Naperville in 1857, at which time it had a population of 2,000." The population should be moved before the incorporation.
• Details on the Kroehler factory should be moved to the Economy section.
• YMCA section includes too much detail; the 2020 developments should be moved to the Parks and rec section.
• "first ever swimming pool in Dupage County" - Remove "ever" and fix "Dupage".
• Railroad accident needs to be slimmed down considerably. The book does not need to be mentioned, the memorial should be moved to Parks and rec, and the train names aren't needed here since there is a separate article for the incident.
  • Change "Chicago history" to something that would be inclusive of Naperville (which is not in the city proper).
• Quite a few decades are skipped between 1857 and 1960. What changes did Naperville experience during the early 20th century? Or during the Great Depression and World Wars?
• Citation 5 does not support the quadrupling of population.
• Corporation, Employment, and Wealth do not need to be linked.
• More details about the growth would be appreciated, such as when major developments occurred and the reception by locals.
• Again, another timeskip almost to the 2020s. What effect did the Great Recession have on Naperville?
• Parking paragraph is insignificant and does not need to be here.
• Tornado information needs to be trimmed, particularly the subdivision list and the details on level of damage.

Geography

• DuPage County and DuPgae River are overlinked.
  • Done
• "DuPage river" needs to be properly capitalized.
  • Done
• "reduce the damages" should not be pluralized.
  • done
• More information on floods affecting the city would help fill out the section, or even the History section if they were major enough.
  • Added info on floods
• No citation for the township paragraph, nor for the Lisle/Naperville Township sentence.
  • Added sources
• No topographical information? How about nearby cities and visible natural features?
  • Added info on it mainly being prairie, and geographic anomalies.
• Looking on online maps, it looks like the boundaries are quite complex and have tons of exclaves that should be mentioned.
  • Added

Climate

• Prose needed to accompany the table, particularly the climate type, normal conditions, and record temperatures.
  • Done
• Table source needs to be listed properly, not just with the inline citation.
  • Doen

Demographics

• Based on the citations, it seems like data from different years is being mixed here. It needs to be stated when each non-2020 decennial statistic is used, especially in the case of the American Community Survey (which is projected based on samples, not a full census).
  • I split it up into where the ACS, and the Census is used. Done.
• "As of December 2021" does not work for data from the April 1, 2020 Census. This fact is also fairly trivial in nature.
  • I changed it to April 2020, I think that it is a relatively interesting fact to keep though.
• The census races all redirect to the same link, so just link it from "racial makeup".
  • I'm not sure what you mean, the two are for the overall chart which has the majority of races, but if you look, it doesn't have Hispanic, and there's a specialty table for Hispanic, so I had to source the info from there.

Economy

• Shouldn't OfficeMax be mentioned? It had a headquarters in the city and was a national chain.
  • Done
    • And removed. It was completely unsourced. You are not going to get Good Article status by addressing concerns over material missing by adding unsourced claims. Meters (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

      • Hi! Let's first off be WP:CIVIL and not try be hostile towards someone for a simple mistake. Do you think I don't know this? It was a genuine mistake, I forgot to add it in, I am sorry. Here's what you could have phrased the comment as: "Hi! I noticed you didn't add a source to the office max sentence, so I reverted it, you can add it back in with a source later." Instead, you chose to insult my knowledge of Wikipedia. If you think I just randomly put up a GA review, without even understanding WP:POLICY, then you are mistaken. I'm a recent changes patroller, you think I don't know that things don't go into Wikipedia unsourced? With your sentence, you remove WP:GF out of this entire conversation, as the official policy states "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia", you should take this into consideration. I've added it back in, with a source, let's try to stick to WP:5P4 in the future. Thanks! Lectrician2 (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• How many people are employed in the respective major sectors? This information is easily found in Census datasets and is needed.
  • Done
• Commuting data would help, especially to show how connected the city is to the rest of Chicagoland.
  • Done
• "popular" is puffery.
  • Done
• "public-private" should use an endash and link to public–private partnership.
  • Done

Top employers

• Table does not need its own subsection.
  • Done

Arts and culture

• Listing more annual events would be good here, as well as other cultural institutions.

Library

• Again, the list would work better in prose form. Also, the addresses are unnecessary.
  • Done
• Ranking is meaningless, and quite out of date.
  • Done
• Library information should include a basic history, funding source, collections size, circulation count, and number of patrons.
  • It's a lot of primary sources, which isn't ideal, but I added it.
• Nichols Library: Choppy sentences and not fully referenced.
  • Done
• 95th Street: drop "curving" from the description.
  • Done

Art

• Quite a few forms are missing here. I suggest looking around for information on murals, sculptures (especially in public places), performing arts (e.g. theatre), and even the number of movie theaters in the city.
  • Done

Tourism

• Rename this section to Historical preservation, as that all that seems to be here.
  • DOne
• When was the historic district designated? What architectural styles is it meant to preserve?
• A fuller description of the old library is needed.
  • Included in the library section.
• The Naperville Settlement sentence is not complete.
  • Done

Moser Tower and Millennium Carillon

• "Moser tower" needs to be capitalized
  • Done
• Where is Rotary Hill?
  • Done
• Image caption should be more descriptive and not be a single long link
  • Done
• "over 15,000" needs to be appended with "people"
  • Done
• "The Carillon" should not be capitalized
  • Done
• "both manually and also computer-playable" - choose one (both) or the other (also)
  • Done
• "done by hand" should be reworded
  • Done

DuPage Children's Museum

• I have to agree with Sdkb: this museum does not warrant a subsection and would work fine as a sentence in a paragraph on other museums in the city.
  • As much as I have to agree with you, there's nowhere else for it to go in the article. I renamed the section "Other Museums" so in the future, there is room for expansion without making the subsection dedicated to one small museum.

Government

• There is no Government section, which seems to be a huge omission for a city of this size. It should mention the form of government, city departments, funding sources, elected politicians, representatives in state/federal bodies, and memberships in other organizations.
  • Whoops, added, done with guidelines per WP:USCITIES

Parks and recreation

• Don't think we need separate headings for each park department.
  • They are two completely separate entities, along with the Riverwalk being a really big draw to Naperville.
• "District" should be consistent in whether or not it is capitalized
  • Done
• Mention the pre-1966 history of the city's parks
  • Added sentence on Centennial Beach, was the main precursor to the established park system.
• Figures that are more recent than 2007 would be helpful.
  • Done

Riverwalk

• Second sentence is all puffery and should be removed.
  • Done
• Mileage should have {{convert}} added
  • Done
• "made up of" should be "comprises"
  • Done
• The list of features should use generic terms instead of their respective names unless they truly are notable.
  • Done
• September 11 attacks should be linked, but I question the need for a sentence just for the memorial.
  • I agree about removing it, I also added something about it to the century walk paragraph.
• "in "Riverwalk 2031 Master Plan"" should have "the" added
  • Done
• Plan summary should be combined into a short sentence that doesn't use a quote for "gateway to North Central College"
  • Done
• The last part mentions the college again and is entirely redundant
  • Done

Other facilities

• "Facilities" and "Cricket" should not be capitalized
  • Done
• "Naperville Park district" should be capitalized
  • Done
• "many other properties" should drop the "many"
  • Done
• "former quarry turned beach" should end with "into a beach"; swapping "turned" for "redeveloped" would also look better
  • Done
• "Links needed for golf curse, skateboarding, inline skating, garden plots, and frisbee golf
  • Links...? Do you mean sources, because there are sources.
• Some of the descriptions are too short and choppy, work on expanding them more.
  • Done.

Forest Preserve District of DuPage County

• Full stop needed after "within Naperville"
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this, but there is a period.
• {{convert}} needed for the acreage and mileage
  • Done
• "offers [...] activities" is too promotional.
  • Done
• The lists of activities for each facility are redundant and actively hurt the flow of the section.
• "garbage dump" should be landfill and linked
  • Done
• Shouldn't "Hobson monument" be capitalized?
  • Done
• "goes through" would be better as "runs through"
  • Done
• Break up the quadruple citations (77 thru 80)
  • Done
• Whalon Lake Forest Preserve could use an actual description
  • Done

Other

• This section seems to be describing sports teams, so should be renamed to "Sports"
  • The entire section was unsourced, and just felt pointless, so I deleted it and merged a few details throughout the article.
• Who owns the Players Indoor Sports Center?
• The section is quite short and could be merged elsewhere

Colleges and universities

• "their city limits" should use "its"
  • Done
• "predecessor church to" can be cut down to "predecessor to"
  • Done
• Colleges should list enrollment counts, which are readily available from the National Center for Education Statistics
  • I did so with NCC, but everything else is just satellite campuses.
• Facility size and respective streets for satellite campuses are probably unnecessary
  • Deleted facility size, but I believe that there should be some content other acknowledging that it exists.
• Explain that the College of DuPage is the county's community college
  • Done.
• "head quarters" is one word
  • Done
• "along with" could just be "and"
  • Done
• "closed its doors" should just be "closed"; "reduced business" needs to be reworded as well
  • It wasn't a major place, plus now that it's closed, I see no reason to keep it

Public schools

• First paragraph needs an inline citation
  • Done
• The parenthesis with Lisle and Bolinbrook could be better integrated into the sentence
  • Done
• The year range needs to be redone; for example: "The oldest District 203 building still in use is Ellsworth Elementary, constructed in 1928, while the newest is the Ann Reid Early Childhood Center, opened in 2010."
  • Done
• Citation 90 does not support the historical information in the paragraph
  • I can't find anything on the founding, but I can cite the two schools.
• "The 203 school district" should be "District 203" to maintain consistency
  • Done
• Spell out numbers (but not grades) per MOS:NUM
• High school listing should be in parenthesis, otherwise it looks like the colon is affecting the list of junior and elementary schools as well.
  • Done
• Lisle sentence needs an inline citation.
  • Done
• "are within Naperville city limits in the southern part" needs to be reordered as follows: "are located within southern Naperville"
  • Done
• Neuqua Valley High School is overlinked
  • Done

Private schools

• Probably unnecessary to list each private school by name, especially in list form. This could instead be a short paragraph attached to the rest of the section (which does not need level 4 headers).
  • Done
• Reduce the number of primary sources used here, or just simplify the listings to not use exact names.
  • I feel like it would be a negative to not list the names, but there's not really viable press coverage for this topic on these schools.

Media

• Mention the television media market that the city belongs to.
• "prospered by Hosea Paddock and his posterity" is promotional in tone; use more neutral words like "founded", "owned", or "operated" instead.
  • Done
• Where is the Daily Herald published?
• "Naperville, Illinois" does not need the state this deep into the article.
• "1610-AM WPFP 929, AM 1610" seems to be redundant
• "emergency, city and road information" is unclear
• "a album oriented rock format" is grammatically incorrect and also unclear; the citation also does not ​support all of this information.
• Citation 111 needs to be replaced with a better source than just the homepage.

Health systems

• Again, don't need the state name.
• "to create Edward-Elmhurst Health" should use an ndash and an article before "Edward"
• The first sentences here are choppy and should be rearranged to put the basic hospital information first, then the history/mergers.
  • Also, this section should mention the hospital's emergency department rating (Level II trauma center) and specialty practices
• "For many years" needs to be elaborated
• "only to have their request turned down" needs explanation
• "currently" tied to a 2007 citation is way out of date; avoid using terms that can become out of date
• Merge the two single-sentence paragraphs and expand them to describe the services for DuPage.
• Pediatric" should not be capitalized
• "ENT" needs to not be abbreviated on first use

Roads

• Any information on major arterial streets?
• Mention what other cities I-88, US 34, and IL 59 connect Naperville to. Mileages from other major cities would also work here.
• The citation in this section does not support the first two sentences.

Train service

• Went ahead and fixed the opening sentence.
• "Three tracks" should be "triple-tracked" or "three railroads" depending on what you meant here.
• "with passenger rail service" should use "carries passenger rail service"
• The Metra citation does not support the 1864 date, the "three tracks", nor the general location of said tracks in relation to Naperville.
• Prose section should mention the train stations in Naperville before the services; it currently reads as if these trains pass through without stopping. Some basic information such as their opening dates and general location would work here.
• "since 2012" should be "{{as of}} 2012".

Bus service

• "and previously, through 2008, had provided for local midday service" is jumbled and should be reordered to flow better: "and previously provided local midday service until 2008"
• Citations are needed for a lot of information in this paragraph, including the 2008 discontinuation of midday service, First Student's status as a contractor, and the direct operation of routes by Pace.
• "Corporate employment sites" should be shortened to "employment centers"
• Pace's division distinctions are not needed here.
• A single route with multiple operators is unusual; describe it as a corridor or clarify.
• Add an "and" before "downtown on Fourth Avenue"

Airport

• "The" is not needed in front of the airport name
• "designation DPA" can be dropped or moved to a parenthesis after the name instead of being stuck in the middle of the sentence.
• Mileage figures need conversions.
• "Clow airport" needs to be capitalized and should use the full official name.
• Mention the type of traffic that Clow gets as well.
• "Naper Aero Club field" needs to be capitalized; the designation should also be dropped or placed in a parenthesis.
• Drop the "notable".
• The second paragraph is quite short and should be merged.

Utilities

• Typically, an Infrastructure section should include a Utilities subsection with information on who provides electrical, water, heating, and other major services.

Notable people

• Some prose is needed here. Providing a few examples of household names or very significant people from Naperville would be better than just the link.

Sister cities

• Flags should be removed, as they fall under decorative use per MOS:FLAG

Images

• Captions are generally too short and use full stops even when they are not complete sentences (see MOS:CAPTION for advice)
  • Captions should also not be a single continuous link, such as those for the Moser Tower and high school
• Is there a city flag that can be added?
• The Pace image is quite low-quality; could a better version be found or taken?

References

• Citation 5 is dead.
• Bare URLs in citations 27, 45, 49, 66, and 105 need to be cleaned up
• Most citations need a proper entry for the publisher field; some seem to incorrectly place it in the website/work field
• Newspaper citations need to be made consistent, e.g. replacing "chicagotribune.com" with "Chicago Tribune"
• Census citations need to be consolidated
• Far too many primary sources, especially in the parks, education, and infrastructure sections
• I have concerns about the reliability and quality of the books used for citations 8, 9, and 10. These don't seem to come from mainstream publishers and might be self-published.
• AirNav is not a reliable source

Further reading

• Are these really necessary?

External links

• Chamber link is unnecessary.

Quick comments from Sdkb

Hi Lectrician2! You asked about the lead—it looks much better with the expanded history section now, but I think you could probably expand it further. The lead is supposed to summarize the body, and right now you have some large sections in the body (transportation, arts and culture) that do not have any mention in the lead. I'd suggest either adding those or, if you don't think they're important enough for the lead (Does the Moser Tower really need two big paragraphs? Does the DuPage Children's Museum really deserve its own section?) slimming them down in the body. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)