Wikipedia:Peer review/WindSeeker/archive2

WindSeeker

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want someone else's point-of-view of the article and tell me what to improve and what is good about the article. I also hope that sometime in the future the article will become a Featured Article on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Dom497 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting ride - thanks for your work on it. This needs some more work before it would stand much of a chance at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Now I realize that there are no FAs on rides at amusement parks, but I wonder if some the transportation articles which are FAs might be useful for ideas. This is a technologically complex man made stucture used to move people, so maybe a FA on a train or a ship might at least give you some ideas. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport
• When I read the article, my initial reaction was what kind of ride is this - I knew it was tall from the first sentence, but not exactly what it was beyond the pretty vague "thrill ride" - I thought it might be some kind of tall roller coaster or something like Demon Drop at first. I think there are two ways to improve reader understanding early on. One is to include an image of the ride itself in the infobox - there is a parameter to do so and I like File:Canada's Wonderland WindSeeker.jpg best of the images in the article for a lead image. The other way is to better describe the ride itself in the first sentence or two. So I would probably mention the swings and their number and perhaps number of riders there - not sure if there is an encyclopedic way to say it is a Chair-O-Planes on steroids or not ;-)
• I now see some of the sources used call it a "swing ride", which works for me
• In the infobox, I would also put the General Statistics first, and then have the sections about the individual rides at the different parks.
• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - I think it could be split into at least two paragraphs.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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. The cost is in the lead and infobox, but not in the body of the article (for example). I would also make sure that anything important in the infobox is also in the article, like the cost
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the current lead does not seem like that to me. ANother way to think about it is to imagine someone could only read the lead - would it tell them all the basics they needed to know?
• The lead as a summary does not really need refs, except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims. The refs should be in the body of the article when the material is repeated.
• Two dead external links here (tool on this PR page to check ELs)
• I would also make sure all sources used meet WP:RS - is Westcoaster a RS? Looks a bit more like a fan site - what makes it reliable? Is there editorial oversight?
• I expected History to tell me whose idea it was - did Cedar Fair come up with the idea and approach Mondial or vice versa? Do we know when the idea was conceived? Who the designer was? Do other parks also have WindSeekers (besides Cedar Fair)?
• The above points are comprehensiveness issues, which are part of WP:WIAFA
• Galleries are usually discouraged in FAs. {{Multiple image}} might work
• The labeled images are nice, but the print is too small to read on my monitor when they are used within the article.
• The logo and design of the signs are probably TM and coprighted, so File:Knott's WindSeeker Sign.jpg and the other may be fair use.
• The most difficult criterion for most articles at FAC to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. This has decent prose, but noy great. Thinsg like The tower at Knott's Berry Farm has no lights at the top of the tower.[11] need to be fixed (avoid needless repetition, repetition)
• I would like to ride this, but fear I would get scared up so high. ;-)
• Taking a second look - does the lead really need the opening date of each ride? Perhaps the first ride, then say the next three were opened in the same summer, and the next two are planned for summer 2012. I think there needs to more on problems in the lead.
• The History section is oddly organized - the table in the middle breaks it up, so I would move that to the end of the section (otherwise you hit the table while reading and think History is done).
• It might also help to have History broken up into subsections. As it is the first paragraph goes from 2010 to 2012, then the second paragraph goes back to November 2010. WOuld it help to talk about the planning and idea first (for all of them), then go on to announcements. Then you could either talk about the first group of four as a block, or perhaps have a paragraph on each park. Then you could talk about the next two to open, again as a block or with a paragraph on each.
• The level of detail is sometimes a bit much - doe we really need to know One of the thirty-two pairs of seats was removed from the ride for an unknown reason,[40] and were replaced; testing for the ride began shortly after.? Some of the differences at Knot's Berry Farm seem a bit trival to me too.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)