Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I am opening a peer review because I want this article to exemplify the best Wikipedia has to offer. I have written the article entirely with no similar FA's to model on, as no modern theme park has reached this standard. Naturally, all feedback on the article's prose, layout, comprehensiveness, use of images etc would be greatly appreciated. — CR4ZE ( T • C) 04:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I went to Movie world once pretty early on (1992??). Reads okay at first glance....
"roller coaster"as opposed to a blend of "roller coaster" and "coaster" to describe attractions to be consistent.
History
Park layout
Events and guest features
Impact
Overall, the article is well-written and fills all the need-to-know criteria. I would suggest fixing the grammatical or consistency issues to improve better comprehension. Great job improving to GA status! All the best, Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 06:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Casliber: thank you for your feedback. I tried to clarify what a junior coaster is, if you'd like to take a look (see diff). I think I'm understanding your point about chronological flow but wonder if you could give a couple of examples where improvement is needed and I'll take that and apply elsewhere. What would be your plan of attack? Naturally, it's not easy to write on park history without it reading like proseline so I have tried to be creative in my approach and add colour, as you put it. Appreciate your helpful commentary.
@ Adog: thanks for your feedback as well. Just some follow-up (see diff as above):
Everything else covered (I think) if you'd like to take a look. Hope you don't feel I'm simply pushing back on your points. Your comments have been very helpful and I'm keen to hear more if you'd like to share. (Hope you don't mind my "wall-of-text"; I prefer not to make replies inline.)
I will do a preparatory run-through and copy-edit before nominating at FAC but in the interim between would love to hear more thoughts. — CR4ZE ( T • C) 11:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you once again to Casliber and Adog; I will now be closing this peer review. — CR4ZE ( T • C) 07:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I am opening a peer review because I want this article to exemplify the best Wikipedia has to offer. I have written the article entirely with no similar FA's to model on, as no modern theme park has reached this standard. Naturally, all feedback on the article's prose, layout, comprehensiveness, use of images etc would be greatly appreciated. — CR4ZE ( T • C) 04:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I went to Movie world once pretty early on (1992??). Reads okay at first glance....
"roller coaster"as opposed to a blend of "roller coaster" and "coaster" to describe attractions to be consistent.
History
Park layout
Events and guest features
Impact
Overall, the article is well-written and fills all the need-to-know criteria. I would suggest fixing the grammatical or consistency issues to improve better comprehension. Great job improving to GA status! All the best, Adog ( Talk・ Cont) 06:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Casliber: thank you for your feedback. I tried to clarify what a junior coaster is, if you'd like to take a look (see diff). I think I'm understanding your point about chronological flow but wonder if you could give a couple of examples where improvement is needed and I'll take that and apply elsewhere. What would be your plan of attack? Naturally, it's not easy to write on park history without it reading like proseline so I have tried to be creative in my approach and add colour, as you put it. Appreciate your helpful commentary.
@ Adog: thanks for your feedback as well. Just some follow-up (see diff as above):
Everything else covered (I think) if you'd like to take a look. Hope you don't feel I'm simply pushing back on your points. Your comments have been very helpful and I'm keen to hear more if you'd like to share. (Hope you don't mind my "wall-of-text"; I prefer not to make replies inline.)
I will do a preparatory run-through and copy-edit before nominating at FAC but in the interim between would love to hear more thoughts. — CR4ZE ( T • C) 11:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you once again to Casliber and Adog; I will now be closing this peer review. — CR4ZE ( T • C) 07:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)