| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get an idea of what specifically could be improved in this article, especially given its recent creation.
Thanks, Takerlamar (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Onel5969
editOkay, a short article, which for the most part is well written.
- The lead. Short, and does not reflect a summary of the article's contents.
- The history never says when the park was created, unless it's 1951, but it's not specified. The rest of the history is very well written. And it is also a bit sparse, jumping from 1951 or 1954, to 1976, and then nothing beyond.
- The description of the park... oh, wait, there isn't one. This is the biggest problem with the article. How big is it? Expand on what's included in the lead... what are it's borders? Expand on the brief description in the infobox. Give a prose description of the facilities. Who maintains it?
- The access to the park needs a citation.
- Clubs and groups is fine.
Well, I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, very helpful! Takerlamar (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)