Talk:Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington)

Big Red Wagon

I added some information about Riverfront Park located in Spokane Washington. It is a staple of the park (one of many) and I felt it deserved some recognition of the Riverfront Park Wikipedia page. I attempted to upload my own photo of the wagon multiple times but failed. The system would just load relentlessly with no fruition. I got some information about the "Big Red Wagon" from the Riverfront Park website and cited that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblume09 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you know nomination: May 2020

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Riverfront Park in Spokane, Washington

• ... that railroad tracks and trestles once covered Riverfront Park, the 100-acre (40 ha) legacy site of Expo '74 that features the largest urban waterfall in the United States? Source: "...hosted pavilions on the 100-acre site. The original impetus of the fair was to clean up and reclaim the land alongside the mighty falls of the Spokane River, which for decades had been clogged with railroad tracks, trestles, and warehouses...After the fair closed, the site was revamped to become Riverfront Park, today the city's downtown showcase and gathering spot." [1]) and "you’ll find numerous viewpoints of the Spokane Falls, the largest urban waterfall in the United States" [2]
  • ALT1:... that the 100-acre (40 ha) Riverfront Park in Spokane, Washington was once covered by railroad tracks and trestles, but was transformed to host the first environmentally-themed World's fair? Source: ..."hosted pavilions on the 100-acre site. The original impetus of the fair was to clean up and reclaim the land alongside the mighty falls of the Spokane River, which for decades had been clogged with railroad tracks, trestles, and warehouses...After the fair closed, the site was revamped to become Riverfront Park, today the city's downtown showcase and gathering spot." [3]) and "Expo ‘74, the first environmentally themed World’s Fair, opened in Spokane in May of 1974" [4]
  • ALT2:... that a garbage-eating sculpture in Riverfront Park caused an uproar from goat farmers when it was installed, concerned that it perpetuated the false stereotype that goats eat anything? Source: ..."The Dairy Goat Journal, called the vacuum system disguised as a goat a “degrading, debasing, and grossly misleading” addition to the fair. Dairy goats, another letter-writer argued, were “most fastidious in their eating habits.” Writing to The Spokane Chronicle, John R. Hollister of Deer Park said that the public needed to be educated “to the fact that a goat should be properly fed like any other creature." [5] and "the garbage goat did get Turnbull into some trouble. It was written about in a dairy goat publication many years ago, and she got some heated communications from dairy goat owners who were rather put out at the notion of a dairy goat eating garbage" [6]

5x expanded by Jdubman (talk). Self-nominated at 08:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Some of the claims need citations, e.g. Its location immediately north of the downtown core also creates a distinct urban edge, similar to edges created by other urban parks such as Grant and Millenium Parks in Chicago and Central Park in New York City. There are other paragraphs which also don't have sources.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - I slightly modified the hooks to display the name of the park, because Jeopardy!-style wordings like this [[Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington)|urban park]] are unlikely to make it to the Main Page in that state

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Jdubman: Great work on the article, there are just a few things to address. epicgenius (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Epicgenius. Great point on the hook format - the proposed revisions look good and I've updated the primary hook per your suggested format. I've also went back through and added more references where they were sparse and believe the issue is now fixed. I would appreciate another look at it. Thanks again. Jdubman (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jdubman: no problem. Since all the paragraphs are sourced, the citation criteria seem to have been met. Unlike good articles, DYK pages don't need cites at the end of every sentence, just at least one per paragraph. So this is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Riverfront Park (Spokane, Washington)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written. I went ahead and made some minor grammar corrections.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	While the article has a few deviations from the MOS, the lead sections, layout and words to watch are all spot on.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article has a robust references section and copius inline citations
	2b. 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).	The anchors on Citations [23] and [24] are no longer on the target page. Maybe these can be combined into one citation? There are several dead links that need to be repaired, which may be possible with an archived version: Citation [15] (Hickman, Matt. "9 unforgettable urban waterfalls". Mother Nature Network.) Citation [32] (Zhang, Li (May 2002). An evaluation of an urban riverfront park, Riverfront Park, Spokane, Washington : experiences and lessons for designers (Thesis).) Citation [45] ("Spokane River Centennial Trail". American Trails.) UPDATE 1/5/22: These have been corrected.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well cited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Clean report from Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage is broad without straying out of scope.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is rather long and detailed, but with so much going on in this park today and with it's rich history, it seems necessary.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is without red-flags of non-neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No signs of any recent edit warring. Page continues to receive the sort of normal edits I would expect to see.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have proper free-content licenses except for the logo which has a valid fair use rationale provided.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	This article borders on having too many images. One thing I noticed right away is that there are at least 5 images that prominently feature the clock tower. UPDATE 1/5/22: This has been corrected.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this feels like a good article to me. It's a well-written overview of a really interesting place. I've visited the park once in my life, so it was really interesting personally to learn so much about it's origins. After the above items are addressed, this will be ready to pass. UPDATE 1/5/22: With corrections made, this article can pass. Great work, all!

Hi Ricky, thanks for taking the time to review the article! Looking forward to hearing what you think and how we can improve it. :) T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I believe I have fixed all the issues you found, let me know what you think and if you find anything else we need to work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T85cr1ft19m1n (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)