Talk:Starlight Spectacular (Canada's Wonderland)/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Criteria assessed against

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Well-written

There is random bolding in the article, information written (in these). --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lead is not written in compliance with WP:LEDE, information which appears there appears no where else in the article and it does not summarise the article. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Factually accurate and verifiable

Article uses only seven sources, one of which is Facebook, and two of which are message board posts. These need to be removed and replaced with better sources. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is one paragraph which is completely uncited. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reference three appears to be a description of a video. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Information appears in the inbox which does not appear in and is not cited in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Broad in its coverage

Information appears in the inbox which does not appear in and is not cited in the article. This suggests much is missing from the article. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

It looks like undue weight is given to the plot summary. No information in the article about costs. Can't figure out from the article what gives the article notability, which suggests stuff is biased and missing. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Stable

Stable enough. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Illustrated, if possible, by images

File:Starlight Spectacular at Canada's Wonderland 4.jpg is non-free. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]