Talk:International Street

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Street (Canada's Wonderland)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike 289 16:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I read most of the article and the only problem I had with it was in the "Buildings" section. The stuff that lead off that section was very confusing and without a reliable reference. Also, most of your refs were taken from Toronto Star. I think you'll need different sources. Other than those 2, this article is great!Mike 289 16:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't know if you know this but at the time Canada's Wonderland was being built and even before it was built and in the planning stages, the Toronto star was one of the only sources that really kept track in the progressions of the park. Yes, there are other sources that tell you SOME info but the Toronto star was the one source that actually went into depth of what was happening in the park. In the end, the Toronto star is really the only most-reliable source out there to date about the park and really nothing can compare to it.--Dom497 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the intro to "Buildings"Mike 289 19:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

well that there's probably no reference. The windseeker article you reviewed had about 3 statements that had no reference so I think you could make an exception as it only one small statement or delete the statement all together. --Dom497 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright then I'm passing this one too.Mike 289 23:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A comment for the record

While I was writing this comment, the GA passed! Wow. I'm posting simply for posterity, to note issues with sourcing this article.

May I start off by saying "wow", such a quick review turnaround! I'm impressed. Usually I forget that I even nominated an article for GA, by the time it's reviewed, but here this is reviewed before I knew it was reviewed!

If I'm correct, the owners of Toronto's other major newspaper of the era (Toronto Telegram) have been strangely tight-fisted with the rights to their defunct paper, and thus there's no digital subscription service to the archives, and very few libraries and archives in the area have microfilm of the publication. Eventually, I might make a trip to York U, where their collection is stored, but that's far off for now.

As for additional sources, I've started to add content from the Globe, but they are a national paper officially. There is also the book Wonderland through the looking glass, but I don't know how in-depth this pre-opening day critique will go. Plus, being only at the UofT, I'll have to wait weeks for the interlibrary loan. (I'm confident Vaughan had a copy when I check about a year ago, but decided to discard it. As if it was worthless to their collection. Whatever.)

I've done revision to the buildings intro, I agree that was random leftovers that didn't fit elsewhere. One issue I have with this section in general: so much isn't citeable. At CW, all of the buildings in each section is one continuous structure, compared with Kings Dominion, which from Flickr, those buildings seem separate. But no source says that. Some of the hidden uses of the buildings are fairly well-known amongst employees, former employees and uber-fans, but again, not citeable. Even the Maple Room, a chic event venue that you can see from the public area? There's only one reliable reference to its existence, on the park's head chef's blog, but it doesn't say where the venue is within the park. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for re-assessment

I am nominating this for re-assessment as the "review" is a travesty. The reviewer clearly has no idea of how to review against the criteria, the prose is poor, most of the statements are sourced to primary sources, many apparently citede statements fail verification. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What pray tell does it mean to "apparently" fail verification? Either it does or it doesn't. For the one document, I linked to its library record; this is the only known public copy. It's not supposed to link to the text itself. That said, I've photographed the document, and retyped what it says in the original format. However, I've never published it anywhere, as its fully under copyright. If someone else was willing to host the copyright violation, they are welcome to do so, but publishing the document whole anywhere is simply that, wrong. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:International Street (Canada's Wonderland)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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

Disambiguations:

Linkrot:

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. 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.

1. 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.)

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   appears stable

5. 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.

6. 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)

Other questions:

• Why did you mark a passage about their 1979 plans for the Scan building as "update after"/dated? The entire reason it is included is that the info is dated. It's primarily a history article.

I think that I've replied to everything, now. Thanks, -- Zanimum (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Street (Canada's Wonderland)/GA3. 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:

GOCE copy edit, 12/2011

• Alpine Building, 3rd paragraph: The first sentence read 'In 1989, the Photo Shop was "presented by Kodak", with the entire store being called "Geschenke".' I have changed "presented by Kodak" to what the source actually says, and removed 'with the entire store being called "Geschenke"' since (apart from the poor grammar) the source seems to show the exact opposite. Anyway, who cares that Alpenhorne sold Knackwurst in 1979, etc? --Stfg (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• ... and so on. There's far too much recycling of ancient promotional material (including Toronto Star articles) in the Buildings section, which IMHO needs rewriting from scratch. Who gives a damn what a newspaper reporter thought of a slice of pizza in 1981, or what it cost? --Stfg (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Shows, last paragraph: "That diver was concerned about landing on unauthorized swimmers in the pool, which he claimed was a frequent occurrence at that time." This means he claimed that landing on unauthorized swimmers was a frequent occurrence. Landing on someone from a 58-foot drop will generally kill both. If it's meant to say that unauthorized swimmers were common at the time, it needs modifying. --Stfg (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Street (Canada's Wonderland)/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Similar to Main Street, U.S.A. sections" perhaps it's "Similar to the ... sections" (that reads better to me, at least).

• Changed.

• "acts as" followed by "serves as" isn't brilliant prose for me.

• Changed.

• "A similar format is also used in" no need for "also".

• Changed.

• Only one sentence in the lead is directly referenced. This is a bit innocuous as generally the lead shouldn't have information that doesn't appear in the main body, and that's where you could reference it like you have everything else in the lead.

• "Over the years" not particuarly encyclopedic writing.

• Opening date is mentioned in the infobox, and nowhere else, and isn't referenced.

• Image captions only take full stops if they're complete sentences.

• Could link Flag of Canada for those who don't know what it looks like.

• Fixed.

• "80 by 50 feet" consider the use of the {{convert}} template so people who read metric units can understand this.

• Fixed.

• "a half-hour rotation" would prefer "a 30-minute rotation".

• Fixed.

• "the lights were upgraded" it also appears they increased the number from 504 to 300,000, surely worth a mention? Oh, it is mentioned but three paras later, why?

• "world's largest expanse of interlocking paving stones". Quotes should be directly attributed.

• The Toronto Star is actually The Toronto Star.

• Its name change happened in the early 2000s, so then it was The Toronto Star, now it's the Toronto Star.

• "forlorn looking person" should be hyphenated (forlorn-looking).

• Are we allowed to correct the punctuation in quotes?

• Where are Damas and Caballeros?

• Sorry, I've reworded it to specific "Latin themed washrooms".

• "Overlooking front gate is Maple Room" -> "Overlooking the front gate is the Maple Room".

• Half of that was residue from working there; employees now "front gate" as a location, not a description, so they never use the word "the". Fixed.

• "higher end" hyphenate.

Fixed.

• "Front Gate Complex" vs "the front gate" is that consistent? The image has "Front Gate"... Section heading is "Front gate"....

• I've put quotation marks around Front Gate Complex, as the term appears in the referenced planning document, but doesn't appear elsewhere. In practice, at least in recent years, it's just "Front gate".

Way at the back of this photo, between Snoopy and Charlie Brown.

• Perhaps it's because I'm a Brit, but what's a "souvenir cart"?

• It's an outdoor gift shop kiosk that can be moved/removed depending on demand. They never move during a park season, only between them, but they are the first things to be shuttered, because of their limited stock and only one staff member. I couldn't find another term online; here's a pic from Disney World.

• "one ride now actually exits the park" no need for "actually".

• Fixed.

• "2012, actually encroaches" again, no need for actually.

• Fixed.

• Why all the talk of "guests"? Too corporate, these people are "visitors" to the rest of us.
• "metal detectors were added to the gates and security was doubled " don't see this information in the reference.

• Replaced with a different reference.

• "Eis featured fresh fruit" what's that?

• The name of the restaurant stand was "Eis". Would italics be of benefit?

• "In 2005 or earlier..." eh? Don't understand.
• "In or before 2007" similarly. This is really odd.
• Why [note 1] etc? If the information is useful, put it in the article.
• John Player & Sons has an article.

• Agreed, but the store sold other Imperial Tobacco brands as well, so I'm not sure how useful the link would be.

• As does Mr. Sub, and of course there's Subway (restaurant).

• Fixed.

• "St. Albans" is "St Albans".

• Fixed.

• "and in spite of other locations of the chain within the park." personal research?

• Not meant as such, but I've reworked that fragment to be a separate, referenced sentence that doesn't fall under OR.

• "In recent years, it was renamed " what are "recent years"?

• Fixed.

• "in the early years" similar comment. Not particularly encyclopedic writing.
• Fix the [citation needed] tag.

• Deleted the statement, as it was originally taken from this article, I would assume.

• Looks like a little undue weight given to the drowning and subsequent inquest...

• "a variety of entertainment" followed by "a variety of songs" is repetitive prose.

• Fixed.

• Be consistent with date formats in the references.

• Fixed.

• Ref 30 has a maintenance tag.

• The link is dead.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Many issues picked up with the prose above, and referencing in the lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some direct attribution required, some informatoin appears to be missing from some sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Undue weight in my opinion given to the drowning incident.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Caption punctuation needs to be addressed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fix before anyone reviews

Just a heads up, you should probably fix reference #9 & #32, Maple Theme Park & "Canada's Wonderland Shows" respectively, before anyone begins reviewing this. Both have Template:Failed verification attached to them, so finding a reference that does include the information would be a good idea. Elisfkc (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Street/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• I would recommend merging the second and third paragraphs of the lead into one, to clean up the prose
  • Done.
• "When Cedar Fair took over the park, the store Thrills are Paramount changed its name to Thrills are Wonderland. The structure also includes Front Gate Photo" - this needs a citation
  • I've added in the 2006 and 2007 park maps for the name change, and pointed to the 1981 park guide and 2015 park map for the front gate photo.
• "While admissions and a dog kennel have always existed outside the front gate, one ride now exits the park. Leviathan, a roller coaster opening in 2012, encroaches into the visitor parking lot and entrance area." - this needs a citation too. Also, it reads a bit awkward as a standalone short paragraph, so I would recommend merging it into another
  • Done, but I haven't merged. While it's stubby for a paragraph, I'm not sure which paragraph it would relate to thematically, and I don't think there's additional information that I could add.
• "The 1979 plans for this building included: "Shirt printing shop, shirt and sweater shop, Hanna Barbera character hat shop, magic and novelty shop, Mediterranean decorative gifts and jewellery"" - I think this could be paraphrased without the use of quotes, but feel free to ignore. Or you could mention that this was from a 1979 report and keep the quotes?
  • Fixed, and I've given the building more of an introduction.
• "The mountain had a pathway—a circular trail—to the summit" - how about The mountain had a circular trail pathway to the summit
  • I've gone even further and removed "trail"
• The last two paragraphs in the International Showplace section can easily be merged
  • Done.
• No dead links

I found a few minor prose issues that can be cleared up (as well as a couple of unsourced sentences), but once they're all addressed this should be good to go. JAGUAR  13:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. As you can see, I've only had a chance to address half of your finds so far, but I'll finish this round in the next day or so. Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Okay, ready, thank you! -- Zanimum (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! I've gone through the article and it's in much better shape than before. With all of the issues addressed, I'll be happy to promote this. Good work JAGUAR  22:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, thank you! -- 24.114.54.17 (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120173815/http://www.cwmania.com/parkhistory.php to http://www.cwmania.com/parkhistory.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925210901/http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/ride/ to http://leviathan.canadaswonderland.com/public/ride/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cwmania.com/images/parkmaps/2006parkmap_lg.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103000139/http://www.cwmania.com/timeline.php to http://www.cwmania.com/timeline.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004043841/http://www.canadaswonderland.com/attractions/category.cfm?ac_id=22 to http://www.canadaswonderland.com/attractions/category.cfm?ac_id=22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511093228/https://www.canadaswonderland.com/events/event_detail.cfm?event_id=751&ec_id=12 to http://canadaswonderland.com/events/event_detail.cfm?event_id=751&ec_id=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)