Talk:Cattus Island Park

Article feedback, as requested
One way to look at the article is that it is informative, readable, inoffensive, and not contrary to important Wiki policies. However, there is still a quite a distance between this and a featured article.

From an editorial perspective, the most obvious issue is that the Wiki article paraphrases and follows the style of literature passed out to park visitors. It's similar in content to one of the references: http://www.parkday.org/index.htm?cattus.htm&main The purpose of tourism literature in general varies from trying to make a buck, to educating the public, to making a political statement. Of those three that I more or less chose at random, the closest to what's appropriate for Wikipedia is the educational one. Wiki is an encyclopedia.

The park literature in the reference (reasonably enough) includes a little something to interest as many people as possible. The Web site page is loaded with hooks. "privateers" = "pirates", a hot topic in media. Sailboat racing, something for sports fans. Plant names in Latin, for scholars. The park's Web page is good and appropriate writing for its purpose. But it's a different purpose than Wikipedia has.

What to change in this article?

1) Most of the History section would only be interesting to local historians. If that's your purpose, great. Otherwise, the section could be reduced to two or three sentences.

2) It's not clear what exactly about Cattus is special. There were laws passed, and it was purchased with county and state money, but...as a reader of this article...I'd like to know why. What's it all about? Why is this an important park?

3) The section on the Cooper Environmental Center reads like an advertisement. Phrases such as "major resource" and "major exhibit area" are textbook examples of "peacock language" -- subjective, inflated vocabulary that is discouraged in Wiki guidelines as described here: WP:PEACOCK. What does it mean that 90% of the building is open to the public? This reads as a vague innuendo, that the 10% is...what...thrifty?...an indication of how transparent the Center activities are to the public?...that it is architecturally well-designed? I have no idea.

For a direction of article improvement: Write about what you find most interesting. Don't mention anything else at all. Delete whole paragraphs of the other material. One of the great virtues of Wikipedia is that if someone else has a different passion, they will happily add material they find important.

Other issues with the article, such as inconsistent capitalization, are more or less icing on the cake, once you've established your basic text.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)