Wikipedia:Peer review/Forest Park (Portland)/archive1

Forest Park (Portland)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this urban park article for peer review because I'd like to prepare it for FAC. It's not especially long, but I think it's comprehensive. I'd like to know if anything is missing or if anything I've included doesn't make sense or needs repair.

Thanks for any advice. Finetooth (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I like to think that I know Forest Park well; I've walked in it off & on over the decades. And you have a nice selection of photos to illustrate the subject. But while your article covers most of the subject, there are a few points I either wanted covered -- or wanted to know more about: Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Llywrch:
 * Towards the beginning the article states that it is "4,317 acres (17 km2)" in size, down from its 2008 size of "5,100 acres (21 km2)". What happened to cause its loss of 800 acres in the last 12 months?
 * Thanks for pointing out a confusing sentence. The park didn't shrink. The Trust for Public Land used an out-of-date size to make the size comparison. I'll try to think of a more clear way to say this. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another point about its land: ISTR that most of the 4200 acres Forest Park acquired in 1948 was due to tax foreclosures: many landowners got behind on their taxes during the Depression, & instead of selling the clear-cut land to developers, it was made into a park.
 * Thanks. Good point. This section could use more detail. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Was Forest Park part of the Olmstead plan for parks in Portland? Or was their recommendation a separate project? (The article is a little unclear to someone who knows a bit of local history.)
 * Another good question. I will investigate further.
 * Are Macleay & Holman Parks actually part of Forest Park, or are they distinct & separate parks? (This is a bit of trivia which I have sometimes wondered about.)
 * They are part of it. It's odd that they have retained distinct names. I will try to find out why. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to mention that Germantown road (along with Cornell) have in recent years become important thoroughfares heavily used by commuters. (I know this from personal experience. And how unpleasant a car wreck on Germantown raod can be.) This has affected the Park's bucolic nature.
 * Thanks. I mention in the Wildlife section that "Roads in the area severely hamper the movement of large animals." I will see if I can find anything more to add about the traffic. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You may also want to mention that Forest/Washington Park has provided shelter for squatters & transients over the years, some with very elaborate camps. (If you need to find examples, I know the Oregonian & the defunct Oregon Journal has run stories on individuals living in the Park over the years -- one case was only a couple of years ago. A librarian ought to help you find these stories.) It's not quite the "wilderness in the middle of the city" many people think it is.
 * This is a very good suggestion, and I thank you for the leads to the news articles. I think I may be able to find them through the on-line service available to library card holders. You are right about transients, camps, and urban intrusions. I thank you for all of your observations and suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)