Talk:Paul Cornell (Chicago)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Cornell (Chicago) was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-02-24

Very little of this is encyclopedic; and where do those repeated references to a visionary come from? the local Chamber of Commerce? Septentrionalis 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

2/3rds of the page is derived from the Encyclopedia of Chicago. See sources. TonyTheTiger 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Among his contributions to the city was the spirit of guardianship over the Lake Michigan waterfront,"

What does this mean? If it is a direct quotation from the Enc. of Chicago, it is also copyvio.

He was a visionary whose successful planning and push for a town with a lakefront park, a Plaissance, an adjoining park and boulevards shaped the town. His vision for a cornerstone institution to complete the implementation of his plan arrived with the University of Chicago that resulted from the philanthropy of John D. Rockefeller and Marshall Field in 1890.

Visionary twice in one paragraph? Really this will not do. Wikipedia is not a booster club. (And did he really mispell Plaissance? the French is plaisance, the Englsh pleasance.) Septentrionalis 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to <<spirit of guardianship over the Lake Michigan waterfront,">> It is my own phrasing summarizing his banning of industry on this lakefront neighborhood. See my Burnham Plan article about how Chicago is rare among Great Lakes Cities for banning industry on the lakefront.

I believe visionary is my own word. I have to check about 10 places in the Encyc. of Chicago because Cornell is listed on several pages in the index. I will get back to you later, but possibly not until tomorrow. Much of the rest of the phrase may be a bit close to the original text, I will correct as necessary.TonyTheTiger 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Then both are your private conclusions, stated in Wikipedia's voice. Please substitute the facts from which you have drawn them, and let the reader make up his own mind. If you are correct, the reader will agree with you, and also have the facts. Septentrionalis 19:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from En of CHic:

  • In 1856, Paul Cornell initiated the railroad suburb in greater Chicago, when he persuaded the Illinois Central Railroad to operate local passenger service to Hyde Park, six miles south of the city center. pg 192.
  • The development of hte Hydep Park community began in 1853 when Paul Cornell, a New York Lawyer, purchased 300 acres of property from 51st to 55th streets. Always a shrewd investor, Cornell deeded 60 acres to the Illinois Central Railroad in exchange for a train station and the prommise of daily trips to the heart of Chicago's commercial core. the community conintued to prosper over the next 30 eyars, as residential construction expanded and the transportation network grew dense. pg 404.

I admit the phrase <<town with a lakefront park, a Plaissance, an adjoining park and boulevards shaped the town.>> came from somewhere, but I can't find it in the EoC. Must be from one of the other refs. If you feel it is plagurism feel free to change it.

I have no idea whether it is plagiarism; I hope that "plaissance" is an error. Septentrionalis 19:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Contradiction

How do we reconcile the claims in the Hyde Park article that Cornell was an abolitionist and station master on the underground railroad with the "enforcing racially restricted covenants" text? I suspect that the racial covenants applied in a smaller area than the whole Township.

No contradiction. See Washington Park, Chicago (subdivision). The racial covenants were in the 1920s and 30s. TonyTheTiger 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally where the Cornell article says "specifically forbade heavy industry development in Hyde Park" it must be referring to the smaller Hyde Park core neighborhood, not the Township. But I am not privy to the historical documents to check this for sure. The Hyde Park Historical Society has a website with some archival material if somebody wants to comb through it; http://www.hydeparkhistory.org In my opinion the members of the society are not pro- or anti-Cornell. Speciate 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you have your eras correct on this query. I am not sure where it is going. TonyTheTiger 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article status

I don't think that this article is worthy of GA status. For one, it's ugly. The pictures are cumbersome, and they should be reorganized. For another, there are too many sub-sections that are underdeveloped. Also, it's not well written and there are two lines with strange indents. I'd fail it. Jolb 02:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article on hold

I tend to agree with the above comment, but I think the problems with the article can be fixed with some editing from the main contributors. For starters, I want to see inline citations after every sentence. Tell me exactly where you are getting every fact in this article. Someone who is a good writer also needs to do a thorough copyediting job on this article, with particular attention to spelling, grammar usage, and overall flow. Some of the sentences are choppy. I am less concerned about the layout of the photos and the appearance of the page, but I am admittedly less visual than I am copy-oriented. Someone may be able to arrange the photos so the page looks better too. The overall content is quite solid and the subject matter is important. For that reason, I'm putting the article on hold rather than failing it.--Bookworm857158367 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 24, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No. Could use some copy-editing, needs more in-line citations, paragraphs need more development. 2. Factually accurate?: Largely solid. 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes. 4. Neutral point of view?: Yes. 5. Article stability? Yes. 6. Images?: Acceptable, but poorly arranged. When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Bookworm857158367 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)