Talk:International Street/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations:

Linkrot:

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is poor throughout:

Directly into the entrance of the park, visitors are greeted by a large Canadian flag flower bed. (This flower bed is seasonal, not yet planted by the time of the annual park opening, and replaced with a faux graveyard during the autumn.) Semi-literate
Fixed.

The bed uses roughly 11,000 begonias "roughly"?
Changed to approximately. It was a stat for 1981, and the bed is the same size as then, but I didn't want to says "in 1981 it had this many".

Lots of solitary sentences - see WP:MOS
I'll take a look, but a lot of the solitary sentences don't really fit with anything else, and there's nothing else in the sources that I could use that's related. For example, only one news article talked about the visitor flow.

In a 1979 report to the municipal government this phrase is used repetitively in the following paragraphs.

"Maple Theme Park" listed that the company planned the following retail for the building: And so on, needs re-writing in good plain English throughout
Are these changes enough? The public doesn't want to click on footnotes all the time, and so I feel it necessary to emphasize that this was still information was from quite far in advance of opening day.

Lead fails to summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
Done.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Many uncited statements, I have tagged some of the more obvious

Most of the hard information in the article is cited to primary sources

There are unreliable sources and sources which fail verification. Many of the statements, although apparently cited, contain information which amounts to original research.
Most uncited statements fixed.

Yes, indeed, primary sources do make up the bulk of references. But that will be the case with any theme park that isn't owned by Disney. There was painfully in-depth coverage of the park by the Toronto Star in its opening year, but after that, there were years that they opened roller coasters and the Star didn't even give them a sentence to the new ride. Keep in mind, this is Canada's largest theme park, and currently they have the third most roller coasters of any park in the world. It's not insignificant, but its fan base is much less "authorial" than Disney's.

There were many secondary sources that I avoided, simply because they sucked. One travel guide, for example, still lists Star Trek characters (cut in 1995 or so), Nickelodeon characters (cut two years ago), specific Hanna Barbera characters (all but Scooby were cut around 2004), while mentioning the Peanuts characters added two years ago. The only featured roller coaster was added to the park in 1985. Considering that the things I use primary sources for are uncontroversial, I find primary sources best in a situation where secondary sources are lacking.

As noted above the 1979 planning document is linked to its library record; I have a transcription of the publication, that I did, but it's never been formally digitized, there being only one known public copy, and it stored in a reference library themed to urban affairs, indeed one that's being dismantled and merged into one of the two larger reference collections in the city. Dare I say, it may never be digitalized directly (as opposed to from photos and photocopies).

As for the other references that don't lead to a quick fix of info, every single page of the Toronto Star is available as a PDF, through a subscription service that is available at most GTA libraries. Those with an interest in Wonderland all have the potential (dependent on having a library card) to access the database for free. (I should also note that the Globe and Mail is offered through the same subscription website, but a different database within the site.)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article is poorly organised and focussed on the trivia of food outlets and shops. It appears to feature a lot about what the owners promised over thirty years ago. Much of the article is about the whole theme park not the small part of it which should be the focus of the article. It should probably be merged into the main article.
Other than the interlocking stones, what of this article is about the whole park? All of these buildings, shows, and incidents are on or took place on International Street. How else would I organize the article? General facts, building-by-building, info about the pseudo-building and its attractions, entertainment, and end stuff, seems normal to me. As to "what the owners promised over 30 years ago", would you rather I only wrote about what actually was there? Their original ideas for the park are the most fascinating thing to me. Raw concept, how it translated to reality, and what it's become. I've tried to tell the story of the park's lofty goals, their valiant attempts, and what's left once the park's new owners... let's say "streamline" things.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
As far as I can tell, but there is little real information in this article.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
appears stable
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):
Images licensed and tagged, captions poorly written. Image placement seems haphazard
Changes made.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article is a long way from GA status so I am delisting it. Please read the criteria and work to improving the article before re-submitting. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]