Talk:Canada's Wonderland/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DeadlyAssassin (talk • contribs • count) 09:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long, maybe shrink it by merging short sections. I'd pay particular attention to the Themed Areas section There is a mixture of SI and non-SI units used. e.g. you use acre in the lead. Also you should use &nbsp between the value and the unit (you do this most of the time) The lead should be 3-4 paragraphs for an article of this length per WP:LEAD You should avoid using galleries in articles, per WP:Galleries. Maybe try to incorporate the logos in the text? I think the lists are too long for this article, I'd consider spinning them off into separate list articles
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	You rely on CW themselves, we need to be careful when using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), are there any other reliable references to be found? CWmania is a fan site, definitely not WP:RS RollerDB, IMDB and Wikias are user edited and are also not considered reliable There are a fair number of more reliable sources to be found on google books that might help
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The facts and figures really need to be inline cited, I checked a couple and the details aren't reflected in the sources (even ignoring their reliability as identified above)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article really revolves around the rides, which in a way is fair enough, but I'm missing things, some examples being visitor numbers, maybe how much the park makes, any controversy (some mentioned before it openened, nothing now?), you mention how much it costs to get in? As I mentioned lots of focus on the rides, but what about other attractions like live entertainment? Some bits are mentioned in the Theme Areas section, but there isn't much there.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Canada's Wonderland logo.svg doesn't have a valid fair use tag attached.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I didn't complete a full review, and haven't commented on the prose because with the issues I have identified I don't think this is a Good Article yet and requires quite a bit of work to be done still. I see on the Talk page that Themeparkgc did a review and he was right when he said "After these changes are made, the article should be extensively copy edited and then possibly nominated for a GA review". I think this is still premature, you've got a good start but there's a fair bit still to do in my opinion.

Oh well. We did as much as we can. We need to check more carefully next time. I recommend that we address these issues fully before nominating for GA again. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved observer, I would like to point out that File:Canada's Wonderland logo.svg does not need a fair use tag because it consists only of simple text; therefore it cannot be copyrighted and is public domain (hence why it was moved to Commons). jcgoble3 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I extremely agree with Jcgoble3.--Dom497 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:

Yes, I do agree with you. More importantly...this review isn't even complete. The message he mentioned on my talk page was that he stopped because of the issues he found. The review summary has 4 question marks which means that he either needed a second opinion or didn't finish the review. A review shouldn't be stopped half way through just because of the issues he found... it should be completed no matter what. Please send back to me if you support this.
— User:Dom497

I agree with this. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, the time I spent in checking the references, the images, etc led me to believe that the article isn't ready for review (especially the reliance on non reliable sources). It's the nominator's responsibility to make sure that they are satisfied that an article meets the good article criteria, which this one doesn't do. You've had feedback from myself and Themeparkgc to that effect now. It can take many hours or days to complete a detailed review, and the idea that a review should be completed "no matter what" isn't realistic I'm afraid. I'm not sure why there is such a rush on this, and there's a lot to be proud of in the article, but I would suggest that Johnny Au was right when he said "We need to check more carefully next time. I recommend that we address these issues fully before nominating for GA again." --Deadly∀ssassin 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this GA stuff has gotten in my head to much. I'm taking a break from editing this article for who knows how long. Anyone willing to fix the article...by all means go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also taking a break from editing the article, though I may occasionally edit it. Remember that there is no deadline. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]