Talk:Kings Island/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll begin this review. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   article contains way too many list incorporation to pass as GA

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   there is a dead links

   contains {{cn}} and {{refimprove}}

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   (see above)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I don't think there is time to fix this article in the seven days it will be on hold. However, if its problems are remedied, I wlll continue the review. Meanwhile, the article is on hold for seven days. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I think the GA nomination might have been too soon. Quite a few editors have been cleaning up this article and adding a lot of content over the past year, but there is still a lot to do in my opinion. I feel that the request should be cancelled for now, and that a consensus should be sought from frequent editors as a courtesy before nominating the article again in the future. My 2¢ GoneIn60 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not possible to "cancel" a nomination. I can "fail" it and it can be renominated when ready. There's no stigma from my point of view in a fail. I'd like to hear from the nominator first though, else he might just renominate the article for GAN without understanding the reasons why it is not ready. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Officially failed principally on the basis of the numerous embedded lists. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria#Multiple_lists_fail.3F Multiple lists fail? The article Kings Island has recently been reviewed as fail status because of multiple lists. Why is it that an article should fail because of this? see below for response by reviewer.--Nickvet419 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I seen that the review failed because of multiple lists? There are multiple lists because either; they fall under different categories shops, theaters, rides. or they are ride lists that are located is separate sections of the park. how do you suggest that the list should be re-organized to meet a pass? --Nickvet419 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem. The Wikipedia Good article criteria specifically eliminate articles with embedded lists. I believe the thinking is that such articles should try for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates because the difference between a good list and a featured list would not be that great. You could ask at the talk page of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and might get a different rationale. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment without prejudice: Neither the GA criteria nor WP:EMBED require that articles should not contain lists. What is needed is thought, balance, and compromise.) Geometry guy 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, did I make the wrong decision on Kings Island? It had a fair amount of prose, but many many lists (13, I think) plus several timelines and other listy things. Should the editor be encouraged to renominate? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in the article's current form. The issue is not just the many formatted tables, but the bullet point attitude (e.g. on notable people. slogans) that pervades the article. Such formatting sometimes adds value to an article, making it easier to digest, but overuse, as in this case, is a clear reason to fail. Geometry guy 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was the one that nominated Kings Island for GA review. I feel everything in the article is right for an amusement park article. It contains all the information to know the park and nothing more. The only think I would get rid of is the notable people. --Astros4477 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have made a valuable contribution. I hope you have also learned a little about what the GA criteria mean. Geometry guy 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)