Wikipedia:Peer review/WhiteWater World/archive1

WhiteWater World
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is of a higher quality than the current B standard that it is ranked. I have contributed significantly on the article and I would like an outsider's opinion. Thanks, Themeparkgc   Talk  10:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jappalang

Infobox
 * Why is a flag needed? Why should nationality be emphasized here?  Please refer to MOS:FLAG.


 * Are we supposed to provide phone numbers? Is Wikipedia a phone directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)?  This infobox looks more suited for Yellow Pages than an encylopaedia (again WP:NOTDIRECTORY).  I fail to see how  was constructed with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in consideration.

Lede
 * "WhiteWater World is a water park situated directly adjacent to the Dreamworld theme park, ..."
 * Spot the two redundant words.


 * "Just over AUD$56 million ..."
 * Either one or both of the first two words are redundant.


 * "... was invested in eight Australian beach culture themed, world-class attractions."
 * Invested in what aspects of the attractions? Furthermore, "Australian beach culture themed, world-class attractions" is a clunky and biased statment that is not supported by the article.  Which international authority rated these the best of the world?


 * "... has invested in two additional attractions."
 * In what aspects?


 * "Since opening, the park has consistently performed above expectations."
 * What performance? Safety, popularity, financial, social, and so on?

Rest of the article
 * There are so many capital letters in the first sentence of History...


 * "Together, they recognised the need for sustainable water management and environmentally friendly technology during the operation of the new water park."
 * So they are unable to recognise the need on their own? Does that ("need") also mean that other water parks fail because they did not have "sustainable water management and environmentally friendly technology"?  Does this need only apply "during" the operation of the park?  The way the sentence is structured makes me think that they are free to waste water when doing maintenance or can ignore such aspects when planning on how to expand the place.


 * "After six months of operation Ardent Leisure announced that WhiteWater World attracted 247,360 visitors, producing revenue of AU$8.7 million and a profit of AU$4 million."
 * Bad sentence structure that gives rise to ambiguities: after Ardent Leisure has been in buisness for six months, they made an announcement that generated that millions of dollars.


 * "The Get Wet Surf School makes use of the pool for its lessons outside of normal park operating hours."
 * How is this information within the scope of an encyclopaedia?


 * "The park is remaining tight-lipped about the expansion with external relations staff commenting on the high cost of the expansion just after the financial crisis of 2007-2010."
 * This phrase belongs more to a newspaper article than an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, it is extrapolated from a single forum post (of an unknown staff).


 * While it might be notable for the park to have a tie-up with a TV show (albeit now cancelled), the phrasing about the replica clubhouse is not encyclopaedic in my view.


 * History, in my view, has lost focus with the insertions of little details of questionable significance. The events chronicled in History should be items that significantly influenced the park's operation or reputation, not events that just happened and had no lasting impact (does it matter that little mention was on Dreamworld in the announcement?  Why should every announcement of the park's development be covered?).  There are items that would be better placed in Performance (opening day's figures) or Attractions (the chronology of attractions, notable events held in the park).  There are several ways for a better struture, but it might bear consideration to integrate Performance into History, renaming it Commerical history.  In that way, one can explore the history of the park and link its fate to its performance (see Belle Vue Zoological Gardens).


 * Why are the names of certain attractions enclosed with single quotation marks?


 * "The Wedgie is a ProSlide SuperLOOP."
 * Aside from the violation of the MoS regarding capitalization of letters in a trademark. This sentence makes no sense for a casual reader.  What is a SuperLoop?  The same goes for ProSlide Tornado and other later attractions.


 * Many sentences of are of the noun plus -ing construct. These sentences can be problematic, introducing ambiguities or awkward associations.  See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on the issues with such constructs and how to resolve them.


 * Serious sessions of copy-editing are in order as well.

Sources
 * How do parkz.com and roller-coaster.com.au qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches?


 * The Youtube link is a copyright violation. serkan4407 does not have permission from the advertisement's owner to upload it to Youtube; it should not be linked to at all.  See WP:LINKVIO.

Images
 * File:WhiteWater World Logo.PNG
 * Where are the fair use rationales? How does this pass all ten criteria of WP:NFCC?  Why can we not create our own "free" photographs of the entrance or of the entire park instead of using a single copyrighted logo?


 * What is the point of having File:Whitewater World 1.jpg and File:Super Tubes Hydrocoaster and The Green Room at WhiteWater World.jpg (a much better photograph) in the article? They are practically of the same subject from the same angle.


 * File:The Bro WhiteWater World.JPG
 * It would be better if a larger resolution of the photograph is uploaded.

I feel more work is still needed to get this beyond B-class. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your extended comments on the article. I will endeavour to improve this article as per your recommendations and beyond. Thanks Themeparkgc   Talk  23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)