Wikipedia:Peer review/Cedar Point/archive1

Cedar Point

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… I plan on nominating this for GAN soon but I need a little more input on the article. I understand it has a lot of lists but it lists everything an amusement park article should have. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Astros4477 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be doing this PR, probably somewhat slowly because of limited time and I tend to work through PRs/reviews/ce slowly anyway. As is often my practice, I'll draft this PR in one of my sandboxes and then move them over here as my thoughts are more complete.[1] You can wait until I'm done, or you can address my feedback as we go; it's totally up to you. Should be fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Take your time. I have a few little things I have to do for the article but I'm relatively done until I get feedback. We'll see how it goes.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It took a lot of this morning, but here's the feedback.

References: They need to be consistent and complete. I use WP:CT; you don't have to use the templates, but they're a good guide for how your sources should be structured, and the information they should include.
Ref 6: I'm not opposed to off-line sources, since many of the articles I work on have them out of necessity, but there needs to be more information: author, page numbers, ect.
Ref 7: Links to CP's webpage, but not to the content discussed in the article. I suggest that you find where it comes from and use that link. The reader shouldn't have to go hunt for what you're referencing.
The History section is almost entirely uncited, as is the end of the Boeckling era section. If the entire section comes from one source, I would either make an inline citation (According to ---), create a note {The information in this section comes from ---), or add a reference at the end of each paragraph.
This article is full of unencyclopedic writing. The 2nd paragraph in the Boeckling era section is an example. You state that Boeckling innately understood what people wanted in a resort and tried to provide that for his guests. What do mean? There's no way for me to know that because your source is off-line. Also, the sentence In fact, by 1901, the resort was controlled by G. A. Boeckling, August Kuebler, Jocob Kuebler, and Charles G. Nielsen who bought out Adam Stoll’s interest in Cedar Point. I recommend that you read WP:W2W, which is about words and phrases you should avoid. I would cepyedit it, but since I don't have access to the sources, that's difficult because it's unlikely that I'd retain their spirit.
One of the major issues with this article is its length. Perhaps one of the ways you can shorten it is to give general information in the history sections. For example, in the "After Boeckling" section, you spend a lot of time listing the attractions at CP during the time, but you list them later, in the "Timeline" section. Listing them like you do is boring, especially for those who have never visited the park. Again, this section has very few references.
Here's what I'd do with the first paragraph of the "After Boeckling" section: After the death of Boeckling, Edward Smith took over management of Cedar Point Little expansion happened through the 1930s. In the 1940s, the park's restaurants were expanded. I'd cut most of the specific information, since it really doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the park. I'd make similar cuts throughout the article. The claims you make about its roller coasters being "the tallest and fastest" have no support.
I'm fairly certain there's no paraphrasing problems, although with the off-line sources and lack of general referencing, it's not totally possible for me to assess it. One indication that it's not an issue is ref 13, which is actually a good source and something you should use more.
One of my personal preferences is that sections are longer than just one paragraph. "Soak City", "Defunct attractions", and "Fast Lanes" link to other articles; the way I deal with that is that I treat them like "forked" articles, with the section in the original article being a summary (kind of like a lead) of the content in the forked article. If you don't have that available to you, that's fine for GAC but probably won't help you if you take this article to FAC.
As I state above, this article is too long. Another idea is to create some forked ones. Perhaps you can create Cedar Point attractions, and then cut-and-paste all that information into it.
I'm not sure that "Slogans" is a necessary section. It smacks of WP:TRIVIA to me.
Related to the above point, read WP:IPC. I'm of the opinion that the "Popular culture" section is unnecessary, especially since nothing in it is sourced. It might get past GAC, but I can guarantee that it won't get past FAC.

Why isn't there any information here from the two Francis books listed in "Further reading"? I'd think there'd be a lot to use.

I hope this helps. Let me know other ways to help improve this interesting article. Not being from the midwest, it was fun to read. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to work on fixing those things. Since the park is so old, there's very few references from the beginning years. Would it be ok to use the same reference for the Boeckling era and After Boekling?--Astros4477 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all you have, that's what you have to work with. Reviewers, especially at FAC, tend to like a variety of sources, though, but remember that WP articles represent a summary of the literature on any given topic, and if one source summarizes the information out there, it's best to use it. IOW, find the best source; oftentimes, there's just one out there. You may be surprised, though. When I started working on Stanford Memorial Church, for example, I assumed that the sources would be scarce. Once I started digging, though, I found more than I thought they'd be, from some unlikely sources. Then other editors showed up to give me sources. There might be an obscure and unknown history of the park out there that you may find. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source which has a video on the early history of Cedar Point. I have yet to watch it but would that be considered reliable?--Astros4477 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Documentaries are often the most reliable sources, especially for pop culture topics like this one. It's so exciting when you're able to find potential gems. I'd think there'd be even more, since CP seems to be much beloved. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some content to the beginning of the History section which included a reference, so unfortunately the numbers listed by Christine above are going to be off. If someone wants to undo the change for now, I'm OK with that. I can always add it back later. Before adding anything else, think I'll work on the list first! —GoneIn60 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The numbering of the refs don't matter; I included them for illustration. My general point about the sources in this article still stands; they need to be more complete and accurate, and the prose needs more attributions. Good luck and have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goneln60, how much more do you have to do in the article? There's still more work that needs to be done but I'm going to list it for a Copy edit when we're done.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately with the weather warming up, the house and kids' extracurricular activities have been consuming most of my spare time! There are a few offline resources I need to look into before the History section can be finished. Hopefully I can get it done in the next few days. I'll at least post another update soon. —GoneIn60 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. I have gone ahead and listed it for a copy edit because there's not alot of work to do, just some things here and there.--Astros4477 (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]