Chuck E. Cheese's edit
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello. I've put this article up for peer review mainly to help my chances of getting this to FA. I've already brought it to GA status, so I'm wishing to now improve it further. Any and all comments/concerns will be looked upon carefully before making the appropriate change. Any concerns with the stability of the article, due to the fact that we're dealing with Chuck E. Cheese's, can be put to rest, as the article was semi-protected a month ago. Thanks! Dylanlip (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Quite well one in places, needs some work in others, but overall very intersting. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to WP:FAC.
The lead is too short - it needs to summarize the whole article and should probably be 3 paragraphs for the the lenght of the current article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but 524 restaurants is only in the lead and infobox.My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the history or some other sections are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD- Voice cast needs references for FAC - it may be seen as too detailed for a FA, not sure.
Make sure to provide context for fhe reader - the Health concerns section does not mention a year / date, for example. See WP:PCRThe parodies section is possibly problematic - unless the epsiode (which is the ref for each now) said "now we will parody CEC by calling it ______ E ______, this seems like orginal research. If there are reviews or other reliable sources that say these are parodies of CEC, then that would be fine.What there is of the history is quite detailed - there is a gap from 1999 to the present (ten years) where nothing is mentioned.Since it is a business I expected more discussion of profit / loss etc in the article (not just in the inforbox).At least one place says currently where it should say as of 2009...- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FA articles on businesses at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Business.2C_economics_and_finance. Odwalla (on a food / drink company) may also be a useful model.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. My opinion/points concerning the lead are on the GA Review here. Though I do agree with the rest of the concerns, and I will begin fixing them immediately. Dylanlip (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've begun improving the article, along with updating the financial information to match the first quarter report. Still looking for those voice references though. Dylanlip (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- The thing with the 10 year gap is that there has been no significant event that has occured in those 10 years. There's been no major change financially, no changes animatronic-wise, and really nothing overall that constitutes as being notable for the history section so-far. (Except for the 30th anniversary, which will be put in momentarily) Plus, are the up-to-the-minute 1% gains/losses in the company really that notable for multiple inclusions in the article? The only concern that still needs work is the character voice refrences, and I think I found some that will be added soon. Dylanlip (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've begun improving the article, along with updating the financial information to match the first quarter report. Still looking for those voice references though. Dylanlip (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
What makes the following reliable sources?- You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Momlogic was involved in location swabbing to check for diseases, and it simply states the findings. Showbiz Pizza.com contains:
- Images of Token cards
- CEC Stage section which shows and proves the existence of multiple stages
- PDFs of old news articles concerning Chuck E. Cheese's
- Photos of CEC locations for other references
- The token site proves that the CEC tokens are collected by exonumia enthusiasts. And finally, the birthday party site is a third-party source that proves the existence of the LIVE! show. Though I do agree with the Citation mix-up. I'll get working on it immediately. Dylanlip (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Momlogic was involved in location swabbing to check for diseases, and it simply states the findings. Showbiz Pizza.com contains: