# Talk:Douglass Park

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of June 8, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This is pretty well written, but the History section needs a bit of MoS. Splitting into subsections will help.
2. Factually accurate?: Very accurate
3. Broad in coverage?: Extremely thorough
4. Neutral point of view?: Follows NPOV well.
5. Article stability? Pretty stable.
6. Images?: Images in public domain.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— GrooveDog 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. For further development, a picture or two from the current day would certainly be desirable. Lampman (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The park has been officially renamed from Douglas Park to Douglass Park.  I've updated the article to reflect that, here.  So, the article should be renamed accordingly.  I think it would be best to rename the article to "Douglass Park".  There's no need to disambiguate the title with "(Chicago)".  — Mudwater (Talk) 11:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In thinking about this further, I believe renaming this article from "Douglas Park (Chicago)" to "Douglass Park" will be uncontroversial, now that the park has been officially renamed.  So, I'm going to proceed with that. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)