Talk:William W. Powers State Recreation Area

Talk page templates

Remain in talk page space not main space. If you want to use the underconstruction template use it. Don't start making up rules. Projects don't get free reign. IvoShandor 11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

C-44 Nike Missle Site

Inclusion of this should also be made. Especially since you can still see some of the radar tower platforms in the parkGary Joseph 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Saw this get nominated at GAC on my watchlist. I won't be reviewing the article because I don't do reviews anymore but if I were I would put it on hold for the following issues:

• Copy editing: There are numerous mistakes throughout the article

• Example one: helped clean up and remove an estimated 36000 lb (16364 kg) tons of waste Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Example two: It is a 804 acres (3.25 km²) lake Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Example three: Wetlands adjacent to the lake include the 250 acres (1.01 km²) Eggers Woods Forest Preserve

template problem.

• Example four: Lake sturgeon, endangered in both Indiana and Illinois, and banded killifish, threatened in Illinois, are both part of the Wolf Lake ecology (This is awkward sentence construction)  Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• These are just examples, go over the entire article. Many of the errors occur with incorrect usage of the plural when talking about acre or acres.

• The lead does not represent a summary of the contents of the article per WP:LEAD.  Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Trivial, but there is a weird spacing issue at the top of the page.
• ??--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe it just shows up in certain browsers, I fixed it though. IvoShandor 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Referencing: The claim about monk parrots is not sourced to what I consider reliable, Qunicy isn't even close to Chicago, thus there expertise on this topic may not be sufficient. The site doesn't provide references for its information and appears to be little more than a personal or business website. Same thing with this website, looks like a personal webpage. See the appropriate section of WP:RS, but basically it says: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
• In general, try to find better sources, aside from the two mentioned much of the article is sourced to a non-independent source, the IDNR.
• Any expansion would be good, the history section especially.
• Much of the article seems like filler content because better information couldn't be found. Like the BioBlitz, not sure that this is something worth even noting in a park that dates back 60 years, surely this type of research goes on all the time, it may warrant a mention, but what is basically the entire "wildlife" section?
• More recent acquisitions: Try to avoid terms like "recent" which can quickly become inaccurate, if they aren't already. Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

These are my suggestions, I would try to address them before a reviewer comes along and fails the nomination, hope this helps. IvoShandor 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Better sources

1. Monk Parrots/Number of visitors: Allen, John. "A Lone Wolf No More," Outdoor Illinois, March 2002. Retrieved 22 August 2007.
2. DNR: This PDF has information about Wolf Lake and its drainage basin, just search for "Wolf Lake" in the document.
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Has some information about dikes and other info.

There is probably quite a bit of info in here that you can use to replace the citations from the official park website with too, more independent verification and such. IvoShandor 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I am putting this article on hold because the history is a little weak. If there is anymore information available, why not add it.Mitch^contribs 22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Seeing how this article's been cleaned up and expanded. I will now pass the article. Good job.Mitch^contribs 18:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:William W. Powers State Recreation Area/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)