Talk:International Street/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 16:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

There are many issues with the prose throughout the article. It needs a good copyedit.

Some examples:

During the park's first season, it was noticed that crowds would generally tend to go to the right side of International Street, towards the direction of Medieval Faire. - Sentence is by itself under the features heading. No context is given, so it seems irrelevant.

In a 1979 report to the municipal government by Canada's Wonderland Ltd., titled "Maple Theme Park", the building was to sell: Camera and film shop (rentals and service), glass blower, glass cutter, china shop, European arts and crafts, Christmas decorations. - Sentence does not make sense as it is written. This problem is repeated multiple times.

The building opened in 1981, Ristorante offered pizza, spaghetti Milanese,[11] and antipasto salad, while Gelati offered grape sherbet (possibly gelato) and tortoni. Souvenirs and novelties were offered at La Casa Del Regalo (Spanish for "The Gift House"), t-shirts, sweatshirts, and hats at Camicie (Italian for "shirts"), and magic tricks at Maschera (Italian for "mask"). - Two poor sentences in a row under Mediterranean Building heading. The first is a run-on. The second one is badly worded.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

b (focused):

The article covers the intended topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: The article is almost the same as the version that failed in August. I agree with the last review and since very little has been done to address those issues, I am not going to pass the article as it is.

Pass/Fail: