Jump to content

Talk:Piedmont Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePiedmont Park has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 21, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Merge from Friends of Piedmont Park

[edit]

Please merge any relevant content from Friends of Piedmont Park per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Piedmont Park. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 08:41Z

Parking Deck Controversy

[edit]

Just tried to edit out a good bit of info about the controversy. There were way too many non-notable details. Just the main points of the current situation need to be in the article itself. Also, please cite sources - the entire article needs them, but cite source that people can then go read if they want all the suit details. If you want to write in that level of detail, the perfect place is as a news article on Portal:Georgia (U.S. state) - it needs content. Please discuss here on the talk page rather than waging an edit war. Thanks. --Roswell native 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added back in were just the details of the lawsuit, which is the current focus of the controversy. That lawsuit includes subjects of local, state-wide, and national interest, including open government, the proper boundaries of public-private partnerships, and the limits on using public resources for non-public purposes. Other information was not included, and the new article gives readers only the main information about the current situation. The new paragraph also includes the only website I know of that contains a copy of the lawsuit. Thanks for the suggestions and the article is now better as a result of your inputs. Atlanta resident. February 18, 2007.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.57.6 (talk • contribs) date.

Thanks for discussing here. The degree of detail in the text is really not of statewide of national interest (in fact, I'm local - I think my family membership to the Botanical Gardens is even stil valid - and I don't really care about the name of the judge or all the allegations of the suit). Basic summaries of the current events are all that should really be in an encyclopedic entry for Piedmeont Park - especially given that the rest of the article is so sparse. Not sure the suit details would stand alone as its own article either so that doesn't seem to be an option either. I still think writing a "news" article for Portal:Georgia (U.S. state) would be a more appropriate place for the blow-by-blow details of the actual lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on this.
Also, the text itself also strikes me as being very POVish. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Anything added needs to fit into those Wikipedia policies. Speaking of which, I'll now get off my soapbox. Thank you again for discussing this on the talk page. --Roswell native 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The legal battle regarding the Park is over. Any continuing litigation is taking place between the FoPP and the ABG and thus does not belong in this article. The focus of this section should now move to the progress of the north woods expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.224.159 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, but the controversial actions of PPC are still relevant and a parking deck in the middle of a park will still be seen as incongruous and controversial. AUTiger » talk 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not so much an opinion as it is being pragmatic. At what milestone would you propose the parking deck controversy become "old news"?

Bias introduced by parking deck opponents

[edit]

Please don't omit the "pedia" from this wikipedia article. As Roswell native commented above, this article is not a soapbox! Edits done by 207.144.135.26 have been very aggressive towards the Piedmont Park Conservancy. Those feelings may be warranted but this is not the place. When in doubt, leave it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.154.55 (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Piedmont Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

  • Format the references according to WP:CITE/ES, preferably using {{cite web}}.
  • For header titles, when a word is not a proper noun, the first letter should be lowercase. For example, "Activities and Facilities" → "Activities and facilities"
  • Even though the "Park Schedule" section is short, it still needs a reference.

Gary King (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Publishers are required for all references.
  • Use en dashes for numerical ranges like "1902-1902" → "1902–1902", per WP:DASH.

Gary King (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days have passed and these issues have not been addressed, therefore, this article has failed its Good Article nomination. Gary King (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review Failure

[edit]

Thank you for your review. However, I am a little offended that you posted additional changes to your review the day before the review period expired. I will make the changes and reapply for good article status. In the future, it would be nice if you could post your review information further in advance.SweetMelissaGT (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we exclude the additional changes, the initial comments were not addressed (or if they were, a comment should be made here.) 7 days for changes to be made is completely standard for WP:GAN. Gary King (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Potential error in lead?

[edit]

A sentence in the lead states that Atlanta's first professional baseball team, the Atlanta Crackers, played in the park from 1902-1902. I doubt it was only for 1902. Can someone please check? Majoreditor (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the correct answer. It should ready 1902 to 1904 instead of 1902-1902. Majoreditor (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Piedmont Park/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the 1887 Piedmont Exposition section, this sentence ---> "President Grover Cleveland who attended with his new wife, Frances Folsom", somehow reads strange, maybe removing "new", since that makes the sentence awkward? In the Olmsted plan section, it would be best if the short sentences be combined together in a paragraph, as the short sentences look dull in the article. In the 20th century growth and development, I ended up fixing the word "Noteable" ---> "Notable", if this is wrong, which I don't think it is, please revert it back. In the Drought section, "In January 2008" it would be best to place a comma after "2008". All done except for the comma after "In January 2008".  Done
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the Opening section, I believe the link "Benjamin Walker" is incorrect, since he was born in 1913 and the section talks about him farming the land in 1887. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. Dates need to be un-linked, per here. Removed red links  Done
    Half-check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see that there were some additional dead links in the footnotes. I've removed them.  Done
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    For future reference, don't add a comma between a two refs., see here, here, and here.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Does Reference 12 covers all this ---> "1904 for was an important year for the park. First, George Washington Collier died in 1903. Collier owned 202 acres (0.82 km2) of land to the west and north of the park that was sold for $300,000.00 to developers. Also that year, the city bought the park for $98,000 finally bring Piedmont Park into the Atlanta city limits. Mayor Evan Howell agreed to purchase the park, but only if it included those developed areas adjacent to the park which would add approximately $35,000.00-$40,000.00 in tax revenues annually"?
    The source appears to cover this and much other material. That said, I think that the paragraph could use some wordsmithing to sharpen the prose.  Done
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ThinkBlue. I didn't nominate this article but I will be happy to help the nominator address some of the issues you raised in your review. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Majoreditor for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ThinkBlue! Majoreditor (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Cotton States Expo was not "The World's Fair"

[edit]

The 1895 Expo was *a* world's fair but not "THE 1895 World's Fair". Reliable sources of today do not call it that - they call it by its full name or the Cotton States Expo. 1895 newspapers called it "the Atlanta Exposition" and when they spoke of the World's Fair they meant the 1893 Chicago World's Fair.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Piedmont Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Piedmont Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piedmont_Park&oldid=1209754257"