Talk:WhiteWater World/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike 2 8 9 18:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since I'll need to make a review, I will do one:

Prose check!

Prose is poor, examples:

The cabanas are located are various areas around the park including adjacent to Pipeline Plunge, Cave of Waves and Wiggle Bay. Each cabana comfortably caters for up to four guests with each featuring deck chairs, couches, coffee table, iPod dock, freshly laundered towels and a mini refrigerator

Similar to the other rides on this tower, guests can ride in a single or double tube down the enclosed and open flumes.

Upon entering the water park the first slide tower guests will see contains the park's main thrill slides In-universe

Lots more like this throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References check!

No they don't! Parkz is not a WP:RS, most of the "facts" are sourced to promotional literature from the park and various forums and Youtube promotional videos. Two dead links need addressing. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead check!

No - Lead fails to comply with WP:LEAD Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer check!

Grammar - not grammer! How can you assess this when you can't even spell? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox check!

Not a GA requirement Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures(when needed) check!

If someone disagrees with me, please add a comment in the next 30 minutes.Mike 2 8 9 18:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a quick glance, the lead has several references in it. For the most part there shouldn't any reason for references in the lead, per wp:lead they are not required if the information is referenced in the body and the lead should not contain information to in the body. This leads me to believe that this is not in the body and should be worked into the appropriate sections.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that User:Mike28968 does not have the reading and comprehension skills necessary to review an article against the criteria or even to understand them. I suggest that you retire from GA reviewing until you have gained these skills. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jez upholds high standards of prose that I do not totally endorse but in this case his points are entirely correct. The biggest problem with the prose is that it is overly promotional in tone, possibly because it is copying the tone of the source materials. The lead is also too short and thus not a good summary of the article (as well as the extensive references in the lead itself). The review was lacking in these respects indicative of a lack of rigorous comparison to the criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]