Talk:Open space accessibility in California

Student comment
This is the best I can come up with for comments at the moment, we'll see how effective it is. I added a few seemingly good sources with open space maps and some data on demographics, access, etc. I'll keep going but I only had two hours to work on it today. I think in general, on first pass, I'd "clean up" the delivery in the opening paragraphs a bit. I think as it is right now it has heavy innuendo (words like radical, some assumptions as to "implications" etc), *I have a really difficult time filtering out this kind of language also!!*. I think that is a big part of the challenge of working in this medium. We have plenty of time to tweak it, and I think as we come up with more concrete info we can make more statements that have evidence and less innuendo. I'm not changing any of that for now though, just something to note for continuing edits! (Ifightninjas (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC))

I think your topic is really cool! I know its just the first draft, but I have a couple small comments that may be useful. For one, I agree with the comment above that the wording could be cleaned up - I think using such adjectives/sentence structures makes the article seem less objective. Second, and obviously I realize this is due to the fact that it is a draft, I would include citations for many of your sentences. The more citations, the more objective the articles is/will appear. On that same note, I really like what you have to say in the third/fourth paragraphs of the overview, but to an outsider, it sounds a bit subjective (even thought it may be 100% true). To fix this, I would pay attention to the rephrasing & steer clear of any words/phrasing that gives your writing a negative connotation. Like the fact that there is unequal access to open spaces is horrible and should have a negative connotation when readers view it, but make sure that the wording is only fact and doesn't even hint at the idea that you personally think this is a bis issue. Third, for the first line of the second paragraph, I would either comment an example of one of his economic measures/policies or add a citation (I agree with you, but citing it will make it seem objective.) Fourth, in the third paragraph, I would rephrase the line "inequalities in nature" to something more like "unequal access to natural spaces" (unless I'm missing the point) - because the wording is confusing. And lastly, I would try to omit phrasing such as "this article will explore..." because it doesn't seem very wikipedia-like (again, unless I am missing a direction or something.) Overall these comments are pretty minor and I think your outline for the presentation of data looks really cool! CarlesPuyol5 (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)CarlesPuyol5
 * Thank you for your peer review Charles! Your suggestions are great and we will definitely incorporate them into the article. We'll find some more articles to cite and make sure to keep the language unbiased. Hroodenrijs (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Great topic. To echo some of the previous suggestions, I would recommend tightening up the delivery of the article sections by referencing more sources. For example, when discussing possible factors for inequities in green spaces and access you can state something like, the California Zoning Review Board found that policy X's implementation resulted in "affluent residents imposing user fees that enable their neighborhood’s parks to be sufficiently maintained". Small edits like this can make a big difference. Another thing that could be helpful is researching some of California's history with districting in relation to open green spaces. Also, in section 2 the article mentions benefits from LA open green spaces. Even though it might be implied, it would help to include obvious benefits like recreation. One thing I thought was interesting is how the article mentions the need for green spaces which are culturally specific that have a multi-purpose design. Try elaborating on what culturally-specific and multi-purpose would mean in this context for readers with little knowledge of parks and planning. Another thing your group might find interesting, parks are often used as culturally significant places for community and worship. For instance, I grew up in LA and some of my favorite memories are of going to the park with my family and friends to see our Chicanx peers reconnect with their indigenous roots by conchero dancing. I'm sure many other cultures use parks similarly so you might be able to site some arguments about poc folks and their need for accessible and public open green spaces. Just a thought! Ejlauren121 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions Lauren. I really like the idea of incorporating community into the benefits of open space. We will definitely look into sources on that! Hroodenrijs (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Should we change section 4: health benefits of access to just benefits of access to green space? I found some articles about economic benefits, and like Lauren suggested there are probably community benefits and other benefits as well. Hroodenrijs (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Topic or essay?
I'm concerned that this might not be an encyclopedic topic, and I feel that the article looks more like an essay than a neutral encyclopedia article. I note that most of the references are primary sources or journal papers. Can you find sources which address this topic in depth, demonstrating that the topic is notable? By this, I don't just mean the individual facts which are presented, but the topic of inequalities of open space in California. I also wonder if the topic is too narrow. Why are you focusing on just two cities? It might make more sense to write a more general article on open space accessibility worldwide, or in the United States. Pburka (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Pburka! Responses so far-
 * The format was definitely more essay like in first drafts, even more-so before the peer reviews. Some of this has flushed out with more sourcing and information, and more of it has become less essay like by breaking out the topic into more outlined sections. I believe that much of the disconnect is in semantics here, which we're working actively as we work on the article overall. Could you look at it now and let us know if you still feel this way? Understanding of course that this is still a work in progress over the next 4-5 weeks, more suggestions are definitely welcomed!
 * Re: the narrowness of the topic- there was overlap with other groups on similar topics when looking at this through a national lens, not to mention that the topic nationally or globally would be massive. California is in many ways it's own entity when it comes to many topics, due to size, policy and regulation differences, ecology, economic position, lots of things. As such, we are focusing on the two largest metropolitan areas in California, which we believe are unique and significant enough nationally and globally to warrant their own page.
 * I suppose we could fold our information into this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_open_space, although we're really focusing on the aspect of access to open space, not just the definition of it. They overlap some but it doesn't seem to fit into the urban open space article very well.Ifightninjas (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still concerned that the topic of the article might not be encyclopedic. To be included in Wikipedia, a topic should be the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Are there any sources you can point to which discuss the topic of open space accessibility in California, especially in the context of LA and SF? Pburka (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - GSI
Nice work! Great content in here- the article has come a long way! I like the detailed city-specific topics.GAA8423 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

We would like SPECIFIC examples of the biased sections in the article.
We have REMOVED the "Recommendations" section, as it could be interpreted as BIASED. However, we would like SPECIFIC examples of what the public considered "BIASED" that would result in the article's deletion.

There is NO ADVOCACY in this article, but rather FACTS and STATISTICS. Again, please give us FEEDBACK about SPECIFIC PORTIONS of the article that need attention because they are "BIASED."

Evanschwartz (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Evan


 * 1) Relax.
 * 2) Don't ALL CAPS...
 * 3) Am not tagging contributor--or a teaching assistant--but I'll take a swing:
 * Opening ¶ para of §General; 'Environmental Justice Initiatives with "...California's increasingly racist discriminatory housing policies such as Proposition 14" is problematic. "America's Great Outdoor Initiative" line needs a reliable, non-primary, non-advocacy source; bogosity of "...as a result, physical fitness levels..." is off the charts. "...former First Lady Michelle Obama's advocacy has influenced the creation of many community garden across California and the country..." is off-topic and unrelated to §Environmental Justice Initiatives. Tail of §General; Barriers to Equal Accessibility is "Paradoxically..." problematic as well. There are other issues, such as unreliable sources, content being immediately repeated in a succeeding sentence, among others.


 * It all reads more like a school paper rather than encyclopaedia entry. Article is largely not ready for Main namespace and should ideally be shuffled back to Draft or User-space.


 * Further, the Edu course page being blatantly biased and agenda-pushing is gonna impact and reflect negatively on all contributions emanating from it. Some of that is both rightfully and wrongfully deserved. More your instructors' fault, really.


 * More broadly, there's the whole "environmental justice" angle and implied-bias being shoehorned into everything. World doesn't work if that's the only tint one perceives with, and encyclopaedia articles don't either. EJ is inherently political; since this falls under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, we must necessarily exercise additional caution and scrutiny in this regard.


 * Oh! And this whole encyclopaedia and project is biased: Systemic bias. --  dsprc   [talk]  04:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Replying here as you requested on my talk page. Unlike school assignments, the goal of encyclopedia articles is to provide a neutral perspective and be a source of information, not push a particular point of view or advocate for solving a specific problem. This can be overt (as in the recommendations section you removed) or not so overt (by presenting only one side of the issue, which you are doing).


 * The first section about general benefits can be reduced or eliminated entirely, and readers merely referred to Urban open space, as you have in the lead.
 * Currently, the article is presented as "these are the attempts to solve the problem" followed by "these are the problems that remain to be solved". This method is ideal for a school report on an issue but not so much for an encyclopedia article. Rather, I'd focus on true "open space accessibility", with acres/person and efforts to provide more parks in general, then have a separate section on equity concerns greatly pared back (background on the issue and statistics; some examples of attempts in X, Y, Z cities and whether or not they succeeded). There should also be a discussion of the opposition. Yes, the final result will be a lot shorter.

I hope this makes sense. to see if he/she has additional comments. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.
We have taken some of the advice into account. There have been many words that could appear provoking, e.g., "racist," taken out of the article. Many other adjectives have likewise been deleted, and reliable sources have been given for most sections at this point and will continue to be given throughout the week.

We are considering removing the Benefits section and referring to a pre-exisitng open space article's Benefits sections, or even adding on our article onto a pre-existing article under a new subsection "Equity Concerns."

We will discuss this with our instructor on Friday.

Evanschwartz (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Evan

Are we OK to edit??
I don't see what about the "post-1932" politics in our article is troubling the Wiki community. We have only listed unbiased facts and dates in those discussions. PLEASE GIVE SOME EXAMPLES so that we can fix the problem.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanschwartz (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment by the instructor
With respect to this comment:

"More broadly, there's the whole "environmental justice" angle and implied-bias being shoehorned into everything. World doesn't work if that's the only tint one perceives with, and encyclopaedia articles don't either. EJ is inherently political; since this falls under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, we must necessarily exercise additional caution and scrutiny in this regard."

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#What_you_can_do

The systemic bias inhibits perspectives applicable to those most affected by environmental injustice. There is no shoe-horning involved in this class. We are simply trying to add to Wikipedia neutral information that can be of use to those with less power. An article entirely focused on people of color and the environment for example is not biased. It is simply documenting information related to that community and of interest to any who care about it.

Everything is inherently political. It's just a question of who has to power to make it a subject of debate, research, discourse, and decision-making. It is in the places where there is no discourse that great inequalities are masked. Let's not let wikipedia become more like one of those places. Thanks for pointing us to the information on Wikipedia's systemic bias. Please allow us to do something about it in the ways Wikipedia itself has recommended.

--EJustice (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy edit
I will be making a lot of edits to this article over the next day or so. A flag that it needs copy editing has been outstanding for 9 months and so I have volunteered myself to address it. Given the issues around this article I feel a little as though I am stepping into a lion's mouth in order to clean its teeth, so I will only be addressing grammar, style, cohesion, tone and spelling. I will leave decisions regarding neutrality, reliability of sources, page referencing of citations, in page linkages, and whether it is an encyclopedia article at all to my wisers and betters. And will be hoping to go unnoticed by the administrators who posted the nasty warning notice. Hey, administrator, if you are reading this, assume good faith please; this is one of the most overdue articles on the Copy Editors To Do page. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That said, if you have any issues with any of my edits, let me know here. British English is my first language, so if anything gets lost in translation do tell me. (I am hoping that having no connections with the US, or green spaces or health policies, will help be maintain a neutral POV.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)