| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm seriously planning on nominating it for GA status once I accomplish what needs to be fixed. I feel like it needs several peer reviews on which sentences that should be revised, sentences I can remove, clean up, typos, stray characters, grammar, citations, and spelling that needs to be fixed so I can fix them. I can even request copy editing if I have to as well. With that said, I'm ready for feedbacks on this article with what I should fix or improve so that way once I improve it and do what needs to be addressed, I will nominate it for GA. Thanks, LovelyGirl7 talk 06:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments and Feedbacks
editFeel free to leave me down below which sentences in the article I should change or remove (spelling, citations, stray characters, typos, etc) and what the revised sentence should look like. --LovelyGirl7 talk 06:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Tahc
edit- The article seems to be 98% about 1987 onward and very little on events before 1987. Is the land notable only for its dissolution? tahc chat 17:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Tahc: I think that's what it's been notable for. It's notable for what happened after the Bakker fiasco and even before that. However, I did added citations after citations to describe the park. I do feel sentences should be changed though. Which ones do you believe I should change or revise? --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Even if it is (in your POV) "notable only for its dissolution", it should still include more information on it before 1987. tahc chat 21:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Tahc: I think that's what it's been notable for. It's notable for what happened after the Bakker fiasco and even before that. However, I did added citations after citations to describe the park. I do feel sentences should be changed though. Which ones do you believe I should change or revise? --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)