Wikipedia:Peer review/Legoland Windsor/archive1

Legoland Windsor

Having just spent a lot of time and having put huge amounts of effort into this article, I'd really appreciate any feedback, especially relating to getting the article a GA or even FA assessment. Is it worth either of those? If not, how could I get it to GA, or better yet FA status? Cheers! _TheIslander 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does need some work, here are some suggestions. I'm looking at other articles like Disneyland and Cedar Point as examples of other articles that involve theme parks:

I think the first section should be "History", which should include some of the present ownership information that you currently have in the header. Note that this should be prose, and you probably can reduce it down to more notable events (eg the Queen visiting); I think most of what you have there now falls under more mundane details. Note how the Cedar Point article has a section for Retired Attractions, which may be what you want to do here and move those you have stricken through to this section.
Don't need to duplicate the area list at the top as you are going to go through it.
I would put the eateries within each area instead of dedicating a separate section
The notation for "busiest attractions" is easy to miss, and who is defining the "busiest"? (I assume its the guide book). You may make more sense to say, as a lead into describing the park, that "X, Y, and Z are noted as the busiest attractions by the park guide." and not use your bolded approach.
Again, the stricken entries, I'd moved to a "Retired" section.
You shouldn't put a reference in a section header, move it into the first sentence if you need to call it out.
Try to be consistent in your descriptions of each attraction. I would move anything "This opened in 200x" to after the ride/attraction description where you have them, possibly with what attraction they replaced.
I would not be afraid to re-use your guidebook references more to support a lot of the park description and events.
Make sure that your references are following appropriate Citation guidelines.

You're not too far away from a GA candidate. I think the hardest part is the history section, I think you've got the details, but you want to make that more prose. The rest is mostly in organization. --Masem 13:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time ;). There are certainly some points you've made that I agree with: I know the references at the moment are not quite formatted correctly, need to work on them; the 'retired rides' section is an interesting idea; suggesting that the history section should be first is an interesting point. Thanks for your help! _TheIslander 14:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article seems very listy. Meaning that all sections are more or less lists and should be converted to prose. The lead section also needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Also I believe there is a mistake in the lead. Legoland is actually 100% owned by Merlin entertainments. Merlin however is 70% owned by Blackstone and 30% by Lego. --Peter Andersen 21:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. To be honest, I disagree that it's too 'listy'. It includes all the relevant information, and it really isn't an article that lends itself to prose. Still, I take on your comments. Also, for your information, Merlin isn't 30% owned by Lego - it's correct in the article, in that Legoland is 70% Merlin / 30% Lego, and Merlin is 100% Blackstone. After ll, Lego don't own the Tussaud's attractions at all, but Merlin do. Thanks for your input - much appreciated. _TheIslander 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history section should at least be converted to prose. Regarding the ownership issue. I still believe that my statement is closer to the truth than yours. In the press release following the Legoland acquisition it says: "Blackstone and management will take a 70% share in the new Merlin Entertainments Group, while the LEGO Group will hold 30%." (I added the italic) And in the press release following the Tussaud acquisition it says: "DIC will receive £1,028 million cash and retain a 20% stake in the combined company, investing alongside majority owner Blackstone and LEGO Holding/KIRKBI Groups." (I added the italic) --Peter Andersen 10:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not 100% sure, but I'm certainly going to look into it more closely now. Thanks ;). _TheIslander 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 16 metres, use 16 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 16 metres.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Davnel03 - some interesting points there. _TheIslander 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]