Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Washington Park, Chicago
Washington Park, Chicago edit
6 articles
On its second go around, this topic now includes both National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago properties in the neighborhood. I believe it is now complete with respect to the wishes of the discussants at the first nomination (note the last three articles listed in the box are newly minted WP:GAs). I anticipate a subtopic to evolve with Washington Park (Chicago park) as the main article and DuSable Museum of African American History and Fountain of Time when the latter makes its way through the WP:GAC process (hopefully on its first attempt). The subtopic may also include Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic, depending upon commentary. I do not think any of these belong in the main topic here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- It should be noted that I am aware that the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid will be evaluated on 2 October 2009. If successful, there will surely be articles under names to be determined for 2016 Olympic Stadium and 2016 Olympic swimming venue. These are both buildings that may very well have articles in October 2009 but not be completed until October 2016. It would be possible that neither article can achieve WP:GA until 2016. I am not sure whether either will belong in this topic or the subtopic, but these will have to be audited articles for several years in all likelihood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - this is a very impressive topic, much better than last time around. I find it amusing that we have here a topic where 5 of the 6 articles all have the same name! (As an aside, I am not convinced that the articles would be un-GA-able before 2016, but anyway, we'll have to wait and see who gets the Olympics because this might all come to nothing) - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about un-GA-able, but I don't think GA should be required until 2016. I should note that I have a lot of experience in getting incomplete buildings through the WP:GA process (
Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Joffrey Tower, and 108 North State Street).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about un-GA-able, but I don't think GA should be required until 2016. I should note that I have a lot of experience in getting incomplete buildings through the WP:GA process (
CommentSupport. First of all, I must apologise for never coming back to this discussion after voting oppose last time. It must have slipped my mind, but was very rude of me. secondly, I think this is much closer to completion than the last one was. However I am reluctant to support because I see a problem in the lead article: the In literature section consists of two unconnected sentences and I am not be satisifed that this is compliant with GA standards. Can this section be expanded into a full prose paragraph, or if not at least presented in a more appealing manner? --Jackyd101 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Better (although "aforementioned adjacent demographically similar" is an unusual turn of phrase). I see no reason not to support.
- I have taken the last two words out of that phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Better (although "aforementioned adjacent demographically similar" is an unusual turn of phrase). I see no reason not to support.
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- very interesting topic that meets WP:WIAGT.--TRUCO 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I assume the community area is named after the park? And the park is named after George Washington. Is it possible to say that somewhere in the community area article? rst20xx (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- We don't exactly have sources giving the linkage. But, I did what I could.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment (again) - would a navbox be merited? rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- How common are navboxes linking GTs? Is it mandatory? I could do one pretty easily, but is it warranted? I don't know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- No it's not mandatory but it's pretty common, due to 1.c). I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate here because it's not very common to have navboxes on places like this, but here you've clearly defined what articles are in the area already and so I thought it would be worth asking you your opinion. As for whether it's useful, I would say yes, it makes navigating the articles even easier. Not going to change my vote based on this though - rst20xx (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have created one that includes the future subtopic articles as well. See below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- No it's not mandatory but it's pretty common, due to 1.c). I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate here because it's not very common to have navboxes on places like this, but here you've clearly defined what articles are in the area already and so I thought it would be worth asking you your opinion. As for whether it's useful, I would say yes, it makes navigating the articles even easier. Not going to change my vote based on this though - rst20xx (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- How common are navboxes linking GTs? Is it mandatory? I could do one pretty easily, but is it warranted? I don't know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)