Talk:Lincolnshire, Illinois

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLincolnshire, Illinois has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Peer Review[edit]

Comment about the intro. It seems to place too large an emphasis on the major businesses in the area. Is Van Vlissingen so important to the town that it deserves to be in the second sentence. Maybe "Local Businesses" could be a separate sub-section down with "Education" and "Demographics". And, could the stuff in the intro about the high school go in the Education section, it reads a little too much like an advertisement. I would also like to see earlier mention of the fact that it is basically a suburb of Chicago. Generally a pretty good article though, definitely deserves better than start-class. maxsch (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look[edit]

As requested I took a second look at the article and have some more comments for improvement. While it is looking better, there is still room for improvement.

  • Article needs a copyedit to clean up language and polish prose - ask at WP:PRV for copyediting help. A few examples (not an exhaustive list):
    • Watch for unneeded words Lincolnshire is an affluent village in Lake County, Illinois, United States, and is considered to be a suburb of Chicago.
    • Multiple problems here - run on sentence to start Lincolnshire was incorporated on August 5, 1957 from land in the reputed Half Day area when land was purchased to build a residential subdivision, and gradually grew from conservative roots in the government to annex sizable portions of land in all directions, although it most notably lost a bid for the old Half Day area with neighboring Vernon Hills in 1994. "reputed" does not seem to be the proper word to use here, I think the township it was formed from should be mentioned, and the first use of Vernon Hills should be wikilinked.
    • Try for a more encyclopedic tone, for example A slew of people from Lincolnshire have made names for themselves. should probably be something more like "Lincolnshire has been the birthplace of or home to several notable residents."
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, combine them or perhaps expand them - see especially Geography
  • Historical section - could there be some more information on Lake County history that could be used?
  • Many internet refs still need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy picture[edit]

I think that we could find a much better one. A fountain is not specific to Lincolnshire. We should have a picture of a office building, shopping center, or something like that. Tojo940 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fountain is located in a major Lincolnshire retail center, so I think it is sufficient. --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment and tips[edit]

I reassessed this as a C class for now, though with the suggested changes above it isn't far from B class IMHO. A couple tips follow:

  • I would put the history section first, before everything else.
  • I don't like notable people sections because they encourage random vandal additions. What I usually try to do is work the information into other sections. Often these work in the culture section, if you can manage sub sections such as "sports", "theater" etc. many of the notable people are famous for those reasons, the ones who aren't can be worked into other sections. Just my opinion, but we did it on Springfield, Illinois and it's worked out pretty well.

These are just a couple things, I can drop by again if you need it, Kranar hasn't been too active lately and I am just returning from a hiatus.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

 Done Copyedited by ukexpat (talk), a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: Changes should be apparent from the diffs, but a couple of general comments. I removed some words and phrases that were either repetitious or unnecessary. I cleaned up some of the wording where it read as stilted, forced or unnatural. Added a lead in sentence to the table of office-holders and edited a couple of the headings to comply with MOS. In the Geography section there are some area units which should use the {{convert}} template - I have not made those changes. I also changed the References section to use the {{Reflist}} template in two columns. I realise that this change is only relevant to those viewing the article in Firefox, but it does shorten the References section for those readers. If you have any questions or comments, please leave them here or on my talk page.  – ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit comments[edit]

I've finally arrived. I will get to editing now, and I may make several comments here on this page. Much like a peer review. As I'm not familiar with the article, I will make some of my suggestions here. Editors who are more familiar may then follow up on my comments, and edit the article as such. Jordan Contribs 15:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, the lead section of the article is too long. I know that the lead section of the article needs to accurately summarize the article, but the lead of this article is too lengthly. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD. "The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article."
    • Resolved...? I cut down on information, but the way I originally structured it, it is basically a compilation of a little bit of every single section. It remains structured in this manner. What are your thoughts? --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, this article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. Perhaps the article could be split into a number of subpages related to Lincolnshire?
  • The sentence "The first non-Native Americans to arrive in Lake County were the French Jesuit explorers Father Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet, who sailed down the Des Plaines River and made contact with the local Potawatomi in the area; one of the Potawatomi villages that they encountered stretched along the west bank of the Des Plaines River from present-day Illinois Route 22 south to present-day Aptakisic Road, the first real settlement in the Lincolnshire and Half Day region." is too lengthly. It needs to be broken up into separate, yet understandable, sentences.
Update I put a period in to break up the sentence, which I think is sufficient. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The sentence flows much better now. Jordan Contribs 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article page - Talk page - Project coordination page

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lincolnshire, Illinois/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good work by the editors here. I have just a few comments about Lincolnshire:

  • The sections need to be reordered to match to the guidelines at WP:USCITY. History typically comes first, followed by geography, etc.
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article. That means, talk about the population, location, geography, brief overview of the city's history, economics, etc. Currently it reads like a series of peacock phrases.
    • Comment I fixed it up a bit (I think). I'll read through it a few more times to catch any additional peacock phrases and catch any discrepancies between the lead and its article, and patch those up as well. If you could check on my progress, that'd be great. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to not "bunch up" citations at the end of paragraphs. Since the citations are supposed to cite hard facts, it'd be helpful to have them interspersed throughout the paragraph as opposed to at the very end.
Well, the bulk of the information comes from the sources bunched up at the ends. What do you suggest? --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The education section is too unfocused. Information about what courses are taught at the school is too mar off topic for an article about an entire town.
    • Update: By unfocused I mean, that the information provided in this section should about the town's relationship with the schools, not the schools themselves. So the like I said about above, the information about foreign language courses should be removed, at the very least. epicAdam(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demographics: Sourcing is thin. You also have to link directly to the page where the information is found; you can't just leave the citation as being the homepage for the American Fact Finder, even if that's what you used.
      • Reply Okay, under that lens I think I have some ideas of what to add, although most of the matter is already located in other sections of the article (Safety and Sports & Recreation, respectively). However, does that mean I will have to remove the other collections of information about the History of Half Day Intermediate School, and of the awards that each school district has been noted for? --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the article should be bold except for the article name(s) in the lead. Done per IvoShandor's edits here and here
  • The radio station information under Culture is a bit too unfocused as well. Not sure that a radio station making an appearance at a local event is encyclopedic information.
    • Update: As for the information here, I would really just clean it up. There's a lot of text about the radio stations that I just don't think is necessary. Keep the information about the annual town events, however. Also, are there any notable/historic places in town that could be mentioned here? If so, this is the section to do it. -epicAdam(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Andrea Jaeger cover may violate fair use. The article isn't about the album itself and therefore does not qualify as critique commentary under fair use.

With some more work, and a detailed look at the guidelines at WP:USCITY, this article should be ready for GA in the near future. I will put it on hold for the time-being. Best, epicAdam(talk) 18:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starstriker7's Improvement Notes[edit]

 Done I reordered the sections the best I could according to WP:USCITY; I left the transportation section, however, as a subsection of geography because since this is such a small settlement, I feel it would serve more use there. --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite it being a small section, Transportation is not really a part of "Geography". I mean, anything can be part of geography if you stretch the meaning of the word far enough. I really do recommend that it be broken into a separate section, or a subsection under "infrastructure". Further, information about public safety would go under government, and details about crime, specifically, go under "demographics". -epicAdam(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and  Not done: I put Tranportation back under Infrastructure and Safety is now under Government. However, Lincolnshire, from what I have learned, is nigh invisible on the criminal radar. I don't think I'll find enough on Lincolnshire's criminal activities to form a new section. Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 21:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I fixed the screwy citation in the Demographics section. --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see the reference fixed, however, you shouldn't just leave the citation in the same spot. I would put that citation at the end of each paragraph so that it's clear that each block of information came from that source. -epicAdam(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 23:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done? I removed the Andrea Jaeger picture, and will replace it later on with something involving Lincolnshire parks (maybe). --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of pictures is totally up to you. I would say that the article has enough pictures at current. I would definitely keep quality in mind over quantity. Pictures should illustrate unique aspects of the town. For example, I don't think the picture of Route 22 is a good picture, because that could be a picture of any highway; there's nothing that makes it unique to Lincolnshire. -epicAdam(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember that titles of books and magazines are always written out in their full name using italics... so US News should really be U.S. News & World Report. Let me know when you make some more improvements to the article. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that the only case of this in here is the US News and World Report, which has already been resolved. In that case,  Done --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 00:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second review[edit]

Now that most of the WP:MOS problems are fixed I can go into greater detail with the prose. Honestly, it is not good. The lead, especially, still doesn't really summarize the article. For example, why is "Lincolnshire has been recognized as a Tree City USA since 1988." the second sentence? It's really unimportant and totally out of place in the lead. This entire bit from "unincorporated Half Day area" to "collectively completed by the 2000s" is very confusing to readers who are unfamiliar with the area and second, it's unclear why this information needs to be present in the lead. What does "The village experiences elements of the Des Plaines River," mean? An encyclopedia should not be poetic. If it means that the Des Plaines River flows through a part of the town, then that should be said instead. The trivia about the high school is also unnecessary in the lead, unless the school somehow defines the town. If so, then that should be made clear as well. The information about notable people should also not be present in the lead. People don't often summarize a town.

Further, the sourcing is still missing in areas. For example, in the geography section the sentence references the Census Bureau as the source of the land data, but there's no citation. Also, it is typically unnecessary and undesirable to make a direct reference in the prose to a source, (e.g. "According to Fizber.com compilations..."), unless it is somehow important. Further, that data directly conflicts with the chart below that shows a total precipitation of 36 inches...

These issues are just an example of issues that I still have with the article. It is still in need of a few good copy editors to really tighten up the prose and truly focus the article text. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I can't copyedit or review articles as my English is too bad. I have changed two minor points (see page history). In my lightweight opinion a good article. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, Sebastian.
However, epicAdam, because writing for Wikipedia is not the only writing I do, I've trained myself to write poetically like in the article and now do so without much second thought. Heh, I'd be a terrible copyeditor.
I'll take a look at WP:PRV, see if anyone's open. Thanks, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update I contacted Jordan Timothy James Busson, and he has agreed to copyedit the article. He will not be able to start immediately, but he should be cleaning up the article by this coming Tuesday. Just to let all passerby know. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. That sounds good, but since this review has been open for quite awhile, I'm going to close it until the copyedit is completed. Please renominate then! Best always, epicAdam(talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lincolnshire, Illinois/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review[edit]

Article is "readable" and appears to pitched at the right level. I've added some more wikilinks so that I understood the article a bit better. Now its just the references / in-line citations to check out and possibly a couple, or so, of questions to sort out.Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It's good to know that the article's doing well.
Is there anything I can do to help out? --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 02:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR[edit]

The article appears to be on the right track for GA. But a few questions first:

  • Is there a reference for the first Potawatomi inhabitants, or is that covered by ref 2?  Done Yes, it is covered by ref 2; I clarified this. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, is there a reference for them dominating the region by 1768, or is that covered by ref 2?  Done per same reasons above. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of arrival of the two Jesuit explorers needs to be added.
Comment That might be a problem; I borrowed the book and have already returned it to its owner, so it might take a little while to retrieve said information. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I used a BBC source on another Lake County, Illinois city, which documented their arrival in Lake County. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not all that clear what the sentence attached to ref 24 is intended to say. The paragraph starts off about trees, then gipsy months, then gipsy moth eradication, then two rivers, then finally mentions Des Plaines River. Presumably it is intended to say that the two rivers, or just one river, partially cause the moths; alternatively it could be "read" that the Des Plaines River is partly responsible for two watersheds. Which is it?  Done The latter deduction is the correct one. I clarified this as well by putting it into another paragraph, if it helps. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a WP:verify perspective, refs 21 & 22 provide verification about trees; ref 23 provides information about the moths and ref 24 is a watershed map. So, if it is intended to say that the Des Plaines River is partly responsible for moths, then there is no verification.  Not done Per reasons mentioned above. Gypsy moths spend their lives around trees, to tell the truth. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 comes up with a precipitation figure of 41.93, but no units (I assume it is days), but the article states 110 days.
Comment The reference states the number of centimeters, from what I presume (I added the figures by centimeters in the data table and it came up roughly the same); I took the data from the very top. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference I was talking about was this one [1] which has now become Ref 27. It gives average precipitation per month which adds up to the figure in the last column (41.93), but no units are given. This ref therefore fails the WP:verify test. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once these have been resolved, its probably OK for a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. The lead says: "It is also maintained by a public works system that encompasses complimentary public services and storm drain networks". Does complimentary mean free, as in free to residents? Don't you pay local taxes in the USA, if so the cost comes out of your pockets anyway? (I don't live in the US, if the question seems odd).Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, yeah, technically it is the truth; taxpayers' money pays for all "complimentary" services. I'll reword that. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A good readable article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'm awarding GA status. One ref for precipitation appears to be unsuitable for the purposes of verification, but this is a trivial part of the overall article.

Name[edit]

So how did it get the name Lincolnshire? It seems odd to name a village after an English county, rather than, say, a town or village. Or was a Mr Lincolnshire involved? 86.147.160.133 (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, it seems like it was named after the English county, because if you look around, there's also Bannockburn, Illinois to the Bannockburn in Scotland and Millburn, Illinois (there is no link to the village yet, apparently, but it exists) to the Millburn in Scotland. The connection just seems so obvious, but it's only implied. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but Bannockburn and Milburn are only villages or small discrete areas in a city: Lincolnshire is a whole English county, so not comparable at all. I'll try to make an analogy - in the scale of importance it'd be like naming a place after a US state. Is there any history to say why it got the name? Usually settlers named places after cities, towns or villages 'back home' in the UK they were familiar with. 86.147.160.133 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous People[edit]

Does Lincolnshire have any famous residents or former residents? 68.57.204.63 (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lincolnshire, Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Lincolnshire, Illinois. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lincolnshire, Illinois. 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) 04:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lincolnshire, Illinois. 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) 11:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economy section bias[edit]

I feel like the economy section of this article is written like it's a WikiVoyage page, not a Wikipedia article. It needs to sound much more neutral and include more sources. Meme Star27 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lincolnshire,_Illinois&oldid=1212101068"