Wikipedia:Peer review/Kona Lanes/archive1

Kona Lanes

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Kona Lanes has been created and built to reflect the best an encyclopedia can offer, and I need opinions other than my own to either confirm my belief or improve the article—or both.

Thanks, —ATinySliver|^ATalkPage 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty darn good. The lead section might need to be reformatted to reduce it to one or two paragraphs per WP:LEAD, and some of the one-line paragraphs in the main body are a bit awkward. Other than those small issues with style, it's a great submission. Good cites, good tone. Nice work! _{(Comments added by —Josh3580_talk/hist 14:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC))}[reply]

Thank you for the input. I'll check it out. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My thanks again. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! It's enjoyable to read, compared to the majority of wikipedia articles, although I suppose this may be because the tone feels a little more journalistic than encyclopedic at times. I think it suits the subject perfectly, though. The picture of the sign is the most strikingly iconic, maybe it should be in the lead section? Junkyardsparkle (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments, thank you—and, given that I was a journalist quite a few years back, that's a blessing and a curse when telling a story. As for the sign, I thought of that, but it seemed to make more sense paired up with the new image in its own section. I might try a couple of things, though. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, thanks to User:Candleabracadabra for his edits to the lead; it's smoother and more concise now. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a pretty well done and interesting article. There are some minor style points I would change, but generally it looks good. You might consider noting something about its architecture in the opening sentence. Don't bury the lead. I think the building design and signage is why this former building is worth noting? Take care and be well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good edit, and thank you. You too. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATinySliver (talk • contribs)

The sign picture in the lead gives an immediate sense of why a bowling alley might be notable subject for an article. I feel like the new picture of the sign in the museum could stand on it's own in the section about its preservation, just my opinion. Junkyardsparkle (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may? I tried that, and it didn't seem to have the same impact. Together, they serve as a stark reminder that this place no longer exists. IMHO. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't bother me either way, but being a wiki and all... be prepared for somebody coming along and "helpfully" applying the same logic. ;) Junkyardsparkle (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*snerk* but of course xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and looked at it again and I think you're right. Change made. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]