Talk:Douglas Park (Chicago)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Douglas Park (Chicago) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.

	Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] 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: