Wikipedia:Peer review/Space 220 Restaurant/archive1

Space 220 Restaurant

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to improve it to an FA. I'm am open to any suggestions or advice you have for me. As noted on the peer review page, I will ping active FAC reviewers: @Hog Farm:, @SandyGeorgia:, @Z1720:, @ChrisTheDude:, and @Buidhe:. Thank you for any comments. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have a computer right now and won't be able to give a review. Hog Farm _Talk 13:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad. I see that now ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adog

Hello, as part of WP:APARKS, I would love to see content promoted within our project's scope. Though we do not necessarily have a standard for themed restaurants, I will consider this if it were similar to the standards of an amusement park or attraction article. Some things to consider:

The "History" section seems a bit bare. Is there any additional coverage about its initial planning and construction from reliable sources?
Also, in the "History" section, I would consider rearranging the sentence structure to follow a chronological order of events. I usually try to order articles from concept and planning first to announcements, construction, opening, and further history.
Make sure instances of "Earth" are capitalized.
Is there freely-licensed images to supplement the article's content?

Altogether, the article was a good read. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog: I can't really find anything for the history section, but have rearanged it. Also there are no other mages of the place. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: I see what you mean for the history section, there are some sources that do cover some semblance in its construction from Creative Loafing Tampa Bay, Spectrum News 13, and specifically from amusement park oriented sources Attractions Magazine 1 and Attractions Magazine 2. It seems that WDW News Today and Inside the Magic do have more significant coverage, but I am not sure of those sources verifiability. If they could be verified at WP:RSN, it may be worth while to add. Article looks good in my opinion. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources I will be sure to add what I can! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog: I have added what I could. Is there anything else you see ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Article is looking good from a structural standpoint. I can also offer some grammar fixes if that would help:

Space 220 is based on that of a space station to Space 220 is based on a space station.
...the elevator allows guests to look through the viewing screens to see themselves lift off from Epcot in the bottom screen and into the space station in the top screen to ...the elevator allows guests to look through the viewing screens to see themselves lift off from Epcot on the bottom screen and into the space station on the top screen.
received generally to generally received
...they entered, but while exiting they to ...they entered, but while exiting, they

Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog: Thanks. I have fixed the grammar problems you have pointed out. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

Might give this a review soon. Ping me if I don't leave comments by the end of the month. Pamzeis (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Are you still peer reviewing this article? -- Harobouri ^{T • C (he/him)} 13:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]