Talk:Douglass Park

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This is pretty well written, but the History section needs a bit of MoS. Splitting into subsections will help.

2. Factually accurate?: Very accurate

3. Broad in coverage?: Extremely thorough

4. Neutral point of view?: Follows NPOV well.

5. Article stability? Pretty stable.

6. Images?: Images in public domain.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — GrooveDog 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. For further development, a picture or two from the current day would certainly be desirable. Lampman (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The concerns about the park and neighbourhood being the same name are addressed with hatnotes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

---

• Douglas Park (Chicago park) → Douglas Park (Chicago)
• Jefferson Park (Chicago park) → Jefferson Park (Chicago)

– change to make consistent with other Chicago parks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjkjl555 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. See 2008 edit summary: 16:24, 25 July 2008‎ Nobody of Consequence (moved Talk:Douglas Park (Chicago) to Talk:Douglas Park (Chicago park): Conforming to other Chicago park names) Apteva (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Support per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but not just for consistency with other Chicago parks, but primarily to remove unnecessary disambiguation from the disambiguator, which is clearly redundant. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. For article naming, we should be aiming for cross-WP consistency if at all possible and not just specific examples following some local consensus. If we had on our books a person from Chicago called 'Douglas Park', then what's inside the brackets might be necessary, but in this case the word 'park' is clearly redundant. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the Jefferson Park move; neutral on the other The Jefferson Park article is named that way to distinguish it from the Chicago community area with that name. (It seems that there is also a neighborhood called Douglas Park, although it's not an officially recognized community area.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The naming conventions for neighborhoods already have them named differently with "neighborhood, city" which is why the community article is named Jefferson Park, Chicago. A simple hatnote at the top of the articles is more appropriate for this situation rather than to try and disambig by adding descriptive terms to the page titles. Maybe I should have nominated the page for a move that drops the parenthetical description completely. The problem is that many articles have already been created and there are currently two naming systems being used on these parks articles -- "name of park (Chicago)" and "name of park (Chicago park)". Maybe we should drop both of these and just use "name of park" and hatnotes if there is a neighborhood with a similar name. --Kjkjl555 (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The "Chicago park" part of the title is probably most useful to people who rely on the autocomplete function of the Wikipedia search. They'll know right away if they've found what they're looking for. Zagalejo^^^ 00:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name of park and article

The park has been officially renamed from Douglas Park to Douglass Park. I've updated the article to reflect that, here. So, the article should be renamed accordingly. I think it would be best to rename the article to "Douglass Park". There's no need to disambiguate the title with "(Chicago)". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

In thinking about this further, I believe renaming this article from "Douglas Park (Chicago)" to "Douglass Park" will be uncontroversial, now that the park has been officially renamed. So, I'm going to proceed with that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)