Talk:Connecticut River Walk Park

Citywide concerns vs. "Personal Reflection," and "new sources," as I saw alleged atop the page (July 2011)

I saw "personal reflection" and "inappropriate sources" alleged atop this page, so I read through it from first word to last -- and frankly, I did not read one sentence that is not verifiable, as stated in one of the cited sources. Certainly, it is true that there have been proposed additions to the park, and certainly it is also true that the park is separated from the city by an 8 lane highway, that it has caused problems, and that there have been numerous suggestions regarding how to deal with it.

Perhaps the person who called the article personal reflection missed the public meeting at Springfield's Basketball Hall of Fame in 2010, (cited by an author,) called by the Urban Land Institute based in Boston - attended by Springfield's mayor and state representatives - about how to develop with the city's Riverfront. Nearly all of the discussion at that meeting focused on ways for people to get people around the highway - and even whether it was possible to move the highway to another place. These points are reflected in the citations, and in the article. That is appropriate, according to WIkipedia policy.

If you wanted to add sentences such as "many have voiced concerns," in my opinion, that would be appropriate. My point is that to residents of Springfield, the issue of how to handle I-91 and its riverfront development are public issues - not "personal reflections," but closer to citywide reflections. Certainly, they're held by a large contingent of city residents, (at least as reflected in the meetings I've attended, and the works cited.)

If the comments were something along the line of "the park is bad and full of crime" -- that would be a personal reflection. (By the way, it is not bad and full of crime, in my opinion; however, that is my personal reflection.)

As currently constituted, this article reflects a citywide concern, not unlike Boston's concern about its elevated highway previous to the Big Dig. Also, I followed the links cited, and this article is appropriately cited. It features citations from several UMASS urban design theses, Springfield city hall, and the Urban Land Institute. All reputable sources.

For these reasons, I am removing the two banners put atop this article, because, frankly, I'm confused as to why they were put there in the first place. 76.119.66.131 (talk)

In brief: because it was written in a slightly chatty style, because the tone is that of a reflection on the path and the possibilities for development, rather than a factual description. The fact you're taking the tagging somewhat personally perhaps highlights the concerns! Anyway, I'm not entirely sure that it's notable. Would you be able to check out our policy on notability and see if you can help satisfy the criteria listed there? ninety:one 23:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connecticut River Walk Park. 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/20100813135052/http://www.pvpc.org/resources/landuse/ct_rivwalk.pdf to http://pvpc.org/resources/landuse/ct_rivwalk.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)