Talk:Calaway Park/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 18:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'm afraid even a quick look over this article reveals that it is a fair distance from GA standard.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose tends towards long, compound sentence which unfortunately make reading it a tedious exercise, and parts of it read like they are the legal documents themselves, rather than an encyclopedic description thereof. Single sentence paragraphs are used heavily in the article, which also make it harder to read. The list of rides would be better replaced by descriptive prose, as used in the FA Idlewild and Soak Zone and the GA The Wizarding World of Harry Potter.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Those references which are in place are to good quality reputable sources, but unfortunately, far too much of the information is completely unsourced, a "citation needed" tag is in place at the start of Rides and attractions, and this lack of referencing means there is no way of telling that there is no original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'm going to err on the positive side here: I don't know much about the park, but I would guess that this article is sufficiently broad in its coverage of the subject, and the level of detail in parts also seems about right. The Recent seasons section could certainly do with a clean up however.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No issues here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No evidence of edit wars or significant article changes.
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):
Copyright status of all the images is fine, though a few more images, or at least a better spread would be beneficial.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
As I said at the start of the review, this article is currently a significant distance short of the quality required for good article status. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page with any questions you may have, and I would be more than willing to come back and have another look at the article after some work has been done on it. Harrias ^talk 18:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]