# Talk:Old Louisville

In my last change, I stated I would move the Filson link to See also, but that's not necessary, as it's already wikilinked in the article. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 22:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I have promoted the article to GA status. The next thing I would suggest is working on red links -- either removing them or writing stubs or articles for them. I'd also suggest increasing the number of inline citations as well. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The 10th paragraph in the Leo source states that crime (reported in the first 1/2 of 2006) was significantly down from the 2005 levels. 4.225.122.15 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed it. There should probably be better coverage of crime in general in Old Louisville, there was a great fear of it in the 1970s and 1980s for example, not sure if the crime rates really reflect that. I am not sure where to go for the stats though off the top of my head. --W.marsh 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There are several people who have lived in my house since the 1980s who say things are tremendously better than they were. Also, the city as a whole saw a jump of crime in 2005, not just Old Louisville, this should also be mentioned.   4.225.126.134 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently

might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.

There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
apparently
}
}
}
}
}

might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. }
}
}
}
}
}

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, W.marsh 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just doing some minor cleanup on the history section. I added a few places where I thought citations might help as well. Overall pretty good stuff. No real glaring errors, I did fix one minor POV issue, about the amphitheatre being one of the best theatres, which is a completely subjective statement. I'll look over the rest of the article as well. Hope this helps. A mcmurray 08:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it actually was considered one of the best, if we source that it's not really a NPOV issue. Anyway thanks for the citation needed tags, most books I'm using on this are non-circulating so I'll add citations when I'm at the library next. --W.marsh 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that the fountain in St. James Court was a leftover from the Southern Exposition.  Is that true?  If so, that would be a good nugget of info for the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find anything, it would be an interesting thing to mention... hopefully right after Christmas I'll have time to spend a day at the library. Most of the good books on Old Louisville are non-circulating and out of print. --W.marsh 18:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, my impression was incorrect.  The fountain we see today was installed in 1890, three years after the exposition was over.  I got this from the Encyclopedia of Louisville. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In recent years Old Louisville has been touting itself as the most haunted neighborhood in the country, and the Visitors Center in Historic Old Louisville has begun offering ghost tours based on the allegedly haunted locations mentioned in local author David Domine's books Ghosts of Old Louisville: True Stories of Hauntings in America's Most Haunted Neighborhood and Phantoms of Old Louisville: Ghostly Tales from America's Most Haunted Neighborhood.
Would be nice to mention the book(s) written about Old Louisville though. --W.marsh 12:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Old Louisville/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.  H1nkles (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is fairly solid.  Writing is good, images are fine, no significant MOS violations.  I've sifted throught the article and made some minor edits, mostly MOS compliance stuff, pretty minor.  I would like to see an update of the information in the Revitalization sub-section.  Most of the info is from 2003 to 2006.  What has happened since then?  There is liberal in-line citations throughout the article.  The links are still solid.  The article is a little dated, as evidenced above and given the John Kerry election results of 2004.  This should be updated.  The references are formatted correctly.  I did a couple of edits on some page numbers to bring a little more consistency to the format but these are not significant.  In all the article has maintained its integrity and certainly meets the current GA Criteria.  H1nkles (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Old Louisville/CommentsTalk:Old Louisville/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 01:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Old Louisville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930063831/http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=101641 to http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=101641
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)