Referencing 

Referencing on Wikipedia, thanks to its primitive interface, is a pain. There are a couple of ways to do it: one widely-used method is to simply copy and edit references from another article. The Meridian Hill Park article has a start on references: it's got a heading and a {{reflist}} template, so you're partways there already. There are some extant citations in the text, like{{citation |title=Roads to Diversity: Adams Morgan Heritage Trail |url=http://www.culturaltourismdc.org/sites/default/files/pdf/AMHT_English.pdf |author=Cultural Tourism DC |date=2005}} and {{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=cityguide/profile&id;=799601 |title=Meridian Hill Park: Sports and Recreation Locations in Washington, DC on washingtonpost.com's City Guide |publisher=Washingtonpost.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-16}}. You can see that the references are framed by  (or ) and  in HTML-like markup. You use named references if you are going to use a particular reference more than once. When embedded in the text they'll cause notes to appear in the References section at the bottom of the page.

In the top left of the edit window you should see a toolbar that has, at the left, a button that says "Cite." Clicking it will show a drop-down menu of citation references for web, news, book and journal references, which then leads to a form that you can fill out (not all forms need to be used), and will insert a formatted reference wherever your cursor happens to be in the text. Often, for book references, you can dispense with extensive context after the first reference, and just say Smith, p. 15 and go on.

My main concern on the tone of the article is the use of intensifiers and adjectives in general, which is frowned upon in encyclopedic style. A certain dryness is called for, but there's an art to keeping just this side of plodding declarative prose. It's an interesting exercise. Perhaps not Joe Friday, more like Bill Gannon. 

Have a look at the citations policy for more: also verifiability and reliable sourcing are important. The policies on no original research is important, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on secondary published sources.

I'm certain you'll have more questions, please feel free to ask.  (talk)