Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Washington Park, Chicago/archive1

Washington Park, Chicago

3 articles

The debate about things that might be considered a part of this topic probably starts at Washington Park, Chicago. It may also include DuSable Museum and White City Amusement Park. Other possible debate would consider whether Washington Park Subdivision should be included with a check designating a failed GA that was failed for lack of breadth of topic. I don't think the amusement park or the museum belong in the topic because then we would have to consider each important structure such as Chicago Landmarks or National Register of Historic Places properties in a region to get a promoted topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but that isn't why Washington Park Subdivision failed at GA. It failed because it was badly sourced and would fail for the same reasons today. I see nothing in the nomination or the article that suggests the article cannot make GA and without it I don't think this GA nomination is complete.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In order for me to understand what is necessary to take this topic to GA, is that the only article that needs to be raised to GA. Does Washington Park Court District is just north of Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) and is basically just as close to the community area as Washington Park Race Track and Washington Park Subdivision are to the south. What is necessary to get a GTC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I am not so sure badly source is an accurate summary of the review which said "The article has only a few sources and needs further expansion to reach GA." There are not that many sources for this article. I will see what we can find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I addition to the above, the topic needs a lead article (criterion 2). Zginder 2008-12-31T23:40Z (UTC)
- Does Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) fail the lead article criterion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I just nominated Washington Park Subdivision at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I just added a paragraph to the lead article that includes the potentially related neighborhoods.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am unsure Tony as to what exactly you want this topic to be on. Do you want it to be on the Washington Park community area? This seems to be the most fitting circumstance, if Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) is to be the lead article, and if this is the case, I would say that you would certainly need to include in the topic all the articles on things in the community area (so Washington Park (Chicago park), DuSable Museum of African American History, and any other things in the area with articles), and then could optionally add articles on the things not in the area, but next to it, and with the same name for historic reasons (so that'd be Washington Park Race Track, Washington Park Court District and Washington Park Subdivision) - but if you include any of these three, you need to include all of them. White City Amusement Park is getting a little more tenuous, as it is in Washington Park Subdivision, but not the community area, but it can certainly be included I think if you get it up to scratch. Anyway, I think that DuSable Museum of African American History most certainly needs adding, and if the Race Course remains, then the Court District and Subdivision need adding too. And yes, I think you do need to include Chicago Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places properties in a region to get a promoted topic on that region, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am not so sure I think I need to include all things nearby. It seems to me that the race track and subsdivision are immediately adjacent to the boundary of the neighborhood, but the landmark court district is a block away. If I include anything not adjacent to the Park how close is close. 1 block, 2 blocks, 1 km, 1 mile? Maybe I just include adjacent things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not think we should set a precedent that all NRHP propreties should be required for a neighborhood FT or GT. See List_of_Registered_Historic_Places_in_Chicago. Although Washington Park only has two properties on the NRHP (the park and Schulze Baking Company Plant), Near South Side would include 19 NRHPs plus any Chicago Landmarks not included on the NRHP. A few community areas have even more properties.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, well, firstly, with regards to the adjacent stuff... I think that including one thing outside the neighbourhood, but not another thing that is one block further outside, is somewhat arbitrary. Think about it: the reason you're thinking of including the race track and subdivision is not because they're bordering the neighbourhood, but because, historically, they're tied to the neighbourhood, as reflected in the name. And this also holds true with the court district.
    
    But you could just get round this extra-work dilemma and exclude all three articles.
    
    Secondly, with regards to the NHRPs/CLs - will they all be notable enough to merit their own articles? I am sorry, but I think they should be included, because it is these places/landmarks that really make the neighbourhoods what they are. I appreciate that if it is decided that you do have to include them, it would significantly slow down the rate at which you could create new topics, but on the other hand, the topics that result would be of a much higher quality. Also, in a sense, they provide a nice guideline for what articles you need to get into the topics, and will solve many possible problems with what would constitute cherrypicking - rst20xx (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. if we say we have to include NRHPs and CLs, why do I have to include DuSable Museum of African American History, which is neither?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, it seems pretty notable to me in itself. Also in this particular case, it is one of only two (potentially to become three?) articles about things actually in the neighbourhood. You have to admit though, to try to comprehensively cover neighbourhoods isn't an easy thing to do - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of the neighborhood, there are not many things in it of note. The park, the DuSable Museum and the NRHP Schulze Baking Company Plant would be fairly comprehensive. However, analogous GTCs would be very extensive if they had to create articles for all notable buildings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I realise that, but to reiterate, these are fairly large topics you are thinking about taking on. As I said, covering a whole neighbourhood comprehensively is not necessarily an easy thing to do - rst20xx (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I have nominated Washington Park Court District at WP:GAC. I do not believe there is enough encyclopedic content for this topic to achieve GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been quickfailed without explanation. Can I add it as a checked item with insufficient potential encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think so. Firstly, I think it can probably be expanded, and if it can't, then it should be merged. Secondly, there are actually currently no permanently audited articles, and I don't see this becoming the first - see here for the latest on this. Also, the reason for the quickfail can be seen in the talk page history ;) rst20xx (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do not merge Chicago Landmark articles. I will talk with User:IvoShandor who is the local historic architecture expert that I know best. User:Doncram mostly does NRHPs and I don't think he is from Chicago. I will mention it to him as well though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry that you were misled into thinking that audited articles are a possibility. WP:FT? currently implies they are allowed, but de facto they are not. I think this needs clarification. I shall propose a vote on it - rst20xx (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        IvoShandor came up with sufficient new sources to give this a shot at GAC. I have renominated it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I have just nominated Schulze Baking Company Plant for GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast! Impressive ;) rst20xx (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Upon reflection, I suppose DuSable Museum of African American History could be relegated to a prospective Washington Park (Chicago park) subtopic, which would also include Fountain of Time, meaning IMO you don't have to write it for this topic - rst20xx (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with no consensus - given that (a) there are now 4 GANs holding up this GTC, (b) that GAN can take quite a while at the moment, and (c) this nomination is getting to be a bit cluttered, I think it would be a good idea to close this nomination for now under the last (quickfail) recommendation at WP:FT?. The topic can be renominated once the GANs are complete. By the way Tony, you might want to check out WT:FTQ in the future, as a good place to get feedback on prospective topics without having to go through a GTC/FTC - rst20xx (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]