Talk:Washington Park (community area), Chicago

Disambiguation

I dabbed one article into 3. CHICOTW editorial assistants may feel only 2 are necessary. If so, only create 2 and I will delete the link to the 3rd on the dab page. TonyTheTiger 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony, not sure if we can come up with enough about the racetrack in a week to make it a strong enough standalone article. Maybe for now we could just go with the neighborhood and park articles, and then the racetrack could be a project by itself later on? I need to research it more thoroughly and I'm afraid I might not be around much this week. How does everyone else feel? User:Sebbeng 16:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I will research on Encyclopedia of Chicago this weekend and go for separate article. TonyTheTiger 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Revitalization

I won't have time to do this myself until this weekend, but wanted to share: the University of Chicago included Washington Park in its "Employer Assisted Housing Program" (warning: PDF). Since the U of C is the biggest economic engine in the area, this should, I think, count as notable. I don't know when the program began (I think 2004), or how much of an impact it's had so far, which is why I'm holding off. L Glidewell 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhood map

Does anyone know what procedure I would need to follow to add the official city of Chicago Neighborhood map (external links section) into the template or on the page for the neighborhood. TonyTheTiger 23:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I do, but you might want to hold off on that. There's a huge argument going on right now over fair-use images and image use on Wikipedia in general, and a few editors are going around tagging images uploaded under the fair use license as "replacable". The idea is that if we get rid of fair use images, it will spur folks to get free/libre replacements. Works by the federal government are in the public domain, but state govt works are not. So if you upload it or link it to the page, there's a good chance it will end up deleted by next week. TheQuandry 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the City of Chicago Neighborhood maps to all 77 neighborhood or community area maps since they all are using a similar template. TonyTheTiger 22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll see more about this on the page link I put on your talk page. The problem with doing this is that the images already in there were created by someone who then released them into public domain. So they have no copyright restriction for Wikipedia. The official Chicago maps from the city or state government are protected under copyright. The folks who are crusading in favor of a libre Wikipedia (which basically means that every part of Wikipedia should be freely reproducable, even commercially) want no copyright restrictions. Uploading the official maps will get one of the folks who are on this crusade against fair use (which is how we currently use a lot of copyrighted material) will place a tag on the image and them you'll have to explain why it's not replacable or recreateable. They'll say "it's just a map, it can be redrawn". And then an administrator will come along and delete it. Trust me, it's a huge mess. TheQuandry 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, uploading and linking images is easy. You have to click the "upload file" link in the toolbox menu on the left. Then you go through a normal upload procedure, pick an image license, etc. and upload the file to Wikipedia. Finally, when you want to link it to the infobox, just place the name of the new image in where the old one is. TheQuandry 06:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA Nom

This article has been reviewed against the good article criteria and has failed. The criteria are:

• Well written
• Factually accurate and verifiable
• Neutral point of view
• Broad in coverage
• Stable
• Images

Where the article was good/fell down is listed in detail below.

WW: Fail

• Take out For other uses of the name, see Washington Park – you already have it in the italics at the top of the article.

 Done

• The L Train in History section wikilinks to a disambig page. Please change that.

 Done

• In History: The wide avenues, especially Grand Boulevard (now named Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive), provided great locations for mansions and grand apartments built by wealth Chicagoans. Please add the y to wealthy and copyedit the article in general for sp&gr mistakes. Done

FA&V: Fail

• Half of the neighborhood's lots are vacant, reflecting the fact that Washington Park is one of the poorest in Chicago, with a median household income of only $15,000 a year, although there has recently been a surge in gut rehab and new construction condominiums, signaling the fact that the neighborhood is amidst change.

Is this from that first source, which is inline referenced for the next line? Or is it a wiki users’ personal commentary? Needs a reference

removed unreffed info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• In History, is that first paragraph all attributable to the Chicago Encyclopedia?
  • Yes. I have changed to electronic links for almost all refs. You can now check for yourself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• In keeping with the racial transformation the cultural and religious institutions of the area have been converted from various diverse makeups to African American. Religious institutions of Irish Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jewish faiths have been turned over and converted to African American Institutions.

Again there is nothing cited for this remark. Without a citation it is just someone’s views on the state of the area, articles nominated for good article status need published sources for all assertions which are likely to be challenged, and personal knowledge is not enough to base a GA on.

I have cited this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Broad: Fail

• Not broad enough. An example: ‘’ From 1950 to 2000 the population declined from 57,000 to 14,146’’ – that sentence stops there. Why has the population declined by over 40,000? Is it solely because it is a poor area, as described (but not referenced) in the lead paragraph

Sentence corrected. May still not be broad enough. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: Pass The article is presented fairly, with no apparent bias.

Stable: Pass

Pictures: Fail

• There are no images. However, failing this condition does not preclude an article from passing GA.

 Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (more to come hopefully).

Chrisfow 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The article is very well written and has good reference citations. I think it mostly meets the Good Article criteria, with two exceptions. First, the population decline is still not being explained in enough detail. All it says is that is it, "partly due to initiatives of the Chicago Land Clearance Commission." Ok? So what else? What exactly is the Chicago Land Clearance Commission and what does it have to do with the neighborhood? What are the other reasons for population decline (the statement only partially attributes population decline)?

I think I may have gotten enough info now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The other issue is the images. While the earlier GA review stated no images, now, the images seem to be sufficient, but poorly organized. They seem to be bunched up on the left side of the article, making for some awkward reading if the browser is set to 800x600 or 1024x768. The fountain picture & St. Mary's Church really have no context within the article; why are they significant? The fountain picture might make a good infobox photo for the top-right. Overall, it would be recommended to distribute the photos elsewhere in the article than in the top-left corner.

I have rearranged, but I don't know what it looks like at 1024x768.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than these issues, I believe the article meets the criteria, and can be promoted when they are addressed. I will place this on hold for about a week. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article looks good now. Promoted. Dr. Cash 19:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)