Talk:Corporation Park, Blackburn

Corporation Park, Blackburn was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 17, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Size of park[edit]

The two sources I have found contradict each other on the size of the park: http://www.capitasymonds.co.uk/ournews/article.asp?newsid=1543 claims 65 acres, while http://www.blackburn.gov.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.14412 say it is 18 hectares (approximately 45 acres). Snigbrook 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Capita over-egging their contract there I think. The latter one is definitely more widely used anyway. TreveX^talk 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Corporation Park, Blackburn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. While this article is indeed comprehensive and generally well-referenced, it is erratic enough that I cannot pass it at this time.

This starts in the intro. The first two grafs are in accord with WP:SS and the third one starts out reasonably enough but then gives me detailed measurements of the street frontage better served in the body of the article. Really, all that graf needs is three sentences.

The article is well-illustrated with free images, however they could be laid out less choppily (no need for two lines of text jammed in between images. Try sticking with a standard size for pictures and alternating from the left to right and back (it greatly improves readability, studies have shown). Also, the cutline to the original plan is overly long. The information in the second sentence should really be saved for the text.

The table of costs in the middle of the article is, frankly, the deal breaker. I do not see how encyclopedic it is that we know how much each and every item of the park's construction cost. See WP:NOT#STAT. In addition that table creates a horrid amount of whitespace. This could be dealt with in a summary graf or two at no cost (ahem) to the article.

The prose has been holding its own, but in the 20th century history section it starts to lose its narrative thread. Several grafs begin "In YEAR ..." and it just seems like whatever events were related to the park that could be reliably sourced (or not) were thrown in indiscriminately. So indiscriminately, in fact, that at one point we go from 1960 back to 1957 without any explanation. Very confusing.

There's some slipshod grammar. I don't know if this is some English thing I'm missing, but I think "coronation", in terms of the investiture of a specific monarch, takes a definite article. Certainly it does so at the beginning of a sentence.

I also don't like the "as discussed above" ... very self-referential. There are ways of making this connection for the reader (or letting them make it) without being so blatant.

Lastly, there's the image gallery. Since the article is already pretty well-illustrated, there's no need to park them there; and since they're on Commons, they won't be deleted if they're not in an article. Granted, some of them would indeed illustrate other aspects of the park for the article. But that's a reason to write more of them into the article and find a way to use them. In other words, I really think the gallery ought to go (it also creates more whitespace).

This failure is certainly no reason not to make the improvements and bring it back. Feel free to do so when ready. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Corporation Park, Blackburn. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]