Talk:Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington)/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been sitting around long enough. I'll take a look at it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Located on the site of a former railyard, visions for creating" - grammar; the visions were not located on the former railyard
"however it would be" - however isn't a coordinating conjunction; use but or use a semicolon before however and a comma after it. Check for this issue throughout the article; it comes up in other places.
Third paragraph - "today" and "currently" - better to say "as of _________". The source for your five-year redevelopment plan is nearly five years old but the activity is described as current.
Speaking of sources, you can take the citations out of the lead and the infobox in most cases, as long as they are found in the body.

Site history

The way this section is laid out, it looks like Ref #15 (Kensel, 1971) should support a statement about the origins of Riverfront Park, but it was written before the park was even officially established. That source could support a statement about 19th-century Spokane, but it may be a stretch to connect it to influence on a park that was established decades later.
"and considered one of its founders" - and is considered one of its founders
"much the area along" - much of the
"come to its senses and reclaim the area around the Spokane Falls for a park" - seems like close paraphrasing

Urban renewal

"a group called Spokane Unlimited" - Aside from being composed of business leaders, what kind of group was this? Not-for-profit? When you start to talk about that one, Ebasco Services and then ABC, the groups just feel like a lot to keep track of.
"which would be released in 1961" - The way I read the paragraph, the plan was released, right? The use of "would be" to mean "was" can lead to confusion.
EBASCO is in all caps in the second paragraph but not in the first paragraph or in the wikilink.
Caption: "Overview of the Expo '74 site" - Aerial view?

2016-2021

"Riverfront Park had remained largely unchanged and had not seen any major investments since ..." - It sounds like you are saying that it was still that way until at least 2012, but I would say that in the first sentence, not the second sentence of the paragraph.
"by 20-member advisory committee" - by a
"The new master plan would be completed" - assuming you mean "was completed", not the planned/hypothetical use of "would"
"expected to wrap up by early 2021" - should update this, as early 2021 is here

I am now noticing that the nominator has been inactive for a bit. I'll leave the feedback here and will continue if there is a response in a reasonable amount of time. I usually run through an article at the end of a review and do some grammar cleanup myself, so I am more concerned at this point about the sourcing issues or the wording issues where the meaning isn't clear. Thanks to the nominator for the work on this entry! Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there has been no response to the review feedback after ten days. Since there are 531 Wikipedia articles waiting to be reviewed, I think it makes the most sense to close this one for now. The entry can always be nominated again in the future when there may be editors ready and willing to address any feedback from that review. Thanks to the editors who have already worked to produce a high-quality article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]