Talk:Sonny Bono Memorial Park

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sonny Bono Memorial 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/20120423125702/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0504.beutler.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0504.beutler.html

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) 18:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonny Bono Memorial Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Relativity (talk · contribs) 23:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be reviewing this against the GA criteria. I'll get this done within this week or so. ‍ Relativity 23:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Copyvio Detector

26.5%— and it honestly should be much lower because it's only highlighting the quotes. Good work!

Suggestions, Comments

• In the lead, it mentions that His improvements included installing an underground sprinkler system, planting new Kentucky bluegrass, and adding benches and a wrought-iron fence. Is that part I quoted really necessary for the lead? I think that it goes into way too much detail in the lead.
  •  Done
• That part that I quoted above is in the "Location and design" section. According to the lead, Simon added that. Would that part in the "Location and design" section work better in the "Memorial Park" subsection, where he's already improving the park?
  •  Done
• In the Memorial Park section, it is stated that The site had been a place where one could find trash, weeds, and rats, making it an eyesore in the neighborhood.. The article shouldn't be saying that the park was an "eyesore". That word should be removed, or quoted as the reporter saying it instead.
  •  Done
• Also in the Memorial Park sentence, it says Other features, including the sprinkler system. I feel like it should be changed to "a sprinkler system" instead of "the". But your choice. I won't fail because of this.
  •  Done
• After seeing other memorial parks articles, you should probably move the "Location and design" section to after the "History" section.
  •  Done
• In the Biography and Memorial Plans subsection, there is a sentence that goes After years of being out of the spotlight. "Being out of the spotlight" isn't exactly an encyclopedic tone. I would find some other way to word that.
  •  Done
• Building off of above, I doubt that there's a way to find out just how many years?
  •  Done
• His political career included serving as Mayor of Palm Springs— for how long?
  •  Done
• There are two of the same citation— namely Matt Blitz's article.
  •  Done
• Citing the city's Adopt-a-Park program— can there be a short explanation here what the Adopt-a-Park program really is, and why it matters here?
  •  Done
• After his death, a friend of Bono, Geary Simon, was the second person to learn about the accident.. I suggest rewording to "After his death, Geary Simon, a friend of Bono, was the second..."
  •  Done
• Can you move the plaque picture to the "Location and design" section?
  •  Done
• including the sheet music for "The Beat Goes On"— Should be changed to "including sheet music for..." because otherwise it could imply that that was some sort of special, specific sheet music. If it was some special, specific sheet music, could you specify that?
  •  Done
• There are quite a few duplicate links in this article. I would suggest using this tool to detect them so you can remove them.
  •  Done
• Other features, including the sprinkler system, sod, and shrubbery was added during the next several months. Try "were added" instead.
  •  Done
• The transformation of the eyesore into a memorial site upset some of the area residents. The way that this part about it "upsetting" residences may not be giving due weight to some residents who I'm sure liked the idea of a memorial park. That part gives the feeling that the residents didn't like it overall. Is there anything about how some residents liked it?
  • I don't see any positive comments in the sources, just a lot of negativity. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Building off my last point, can you remove that quote that starts with "I think it’s an outrage that an individual...? It was said by a longtime resident, and I'm not sure it's important enough to keep in there. You could just say that "Some residents had concerns about (then list some concerns from the source)"
  •  Done
• Again, in that paragraph, remove "eyesore". I know that that's how it's called in the news article, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should sound more encyclopedic.
  •  Done
• Simon was a real estate developer— I thought Simon is still alive?
  •  Done
• was happily granted— I would remove the "happily"
  •  Done
• ruined the landscaping— Instead of saying "ruined", is it possible to specify exactly what happened to the landscaping?
  •  Done
• The citation that cites [1] just goes to the main page of the DC Office of Tax and Revenue. Can you link to the specific page where the information is found?
  • It's a database search. There isn't a specific link. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• The citation that cites [2]— is it possible to get an author on that? I can't access it.
  • Sometimes authors aren't included on Proquest, and unfortunately this is one of those times. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, that's fine then ‍ Relativity 03:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Have you thought about adding a "See also" section? It's not required, but it might be beneficial
  • Hmm, what type of links did you have in mind? APK hi :-) (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe other small memorial parks? ‍ Relativity 03:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• The DEFAULTSORT key is the same as Sonny Bono's. I'd change it.
  • I think it's better now? APK hi :-) (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good job ‍ Relativity 03:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe add some measurements of the park in the lead, or some important things in the park?
  • I included the square footage in the lead. Do you want me to add the length on each side? APK hi :-) (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  No. For the lead, sq feet is fine. ‍ Relativity 03:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)