Talk:International Street/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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: