Disclaimer: In the past, I've pointed out statements where opinion was presented as fact (I was told to just understand that). I've made direct quotes of false statements (I was told I should know what they meant, regardless of what was typed for all to see). I took a few steps back, tried to consider some of the sources, and decided it was best to just avoid those observations for a while. It seems like some of these situations are happening in this thread, so I'll briefly tread into those waters, then step back out of that particular wading pool for another 6 to 12 months.
(As has been stated by a few others) it's not hard for me to see why the above statements were questioned. It seems implied that the attraction now has NO SIGNAGE. All the accusations of "bad show" are based on "no signage". It was later noted that the attraction does indeed still have signage (decorative) as well as I assume the required signs at the entrance describing the ride. If they took away signs at the queue/attraction entrance, I would agree, but that's not the case. It almost seems implied that attractions with tall structures need a highly elevated sign, but (as was also mentioned elsewhere) attractions like the "Matterhorn Bobsleds" have survived with minimal signage for years. I think it's okay to see a large structure from a distance, then be intrigued enough to be drawn close enough to read the normal signage.
It seems here that the real issue is that of change (and it's merits). Change can be percieved as good or bad based on feelings, but this doesn't meet the "no signage = bad show" test.
Again, this doesn't meet the test.
Now, what is probably a good point of discussion is the fact that the removed sign was not the name of the attraction, but a decorative sign depicting the fictional hotel the attraction is based on / contained in. Does the building look better with or without the sign? Is the theming hurt or hindered? Everybody's entitled to their opinion. Some older hotels had giant elevated signage, some didn't, so either way could be within the scope of theme in my opinion. Again, is it necessary for "show" or "operations"? I don't think so, for the same reason we don't need a tall signs labeling "The Matterhorn", "Big Thunder Mountain" or "Grizzly Peak".
The above was provided as examples of "recent misses at Disneyland". It seems like the term "miss" is pretty concrete. I'd invite an actual definition and criteria so that these changes can be properly judged. If it's based on attendance, I'd argue that the "Matterhorn redo" doesn't qualify. If it's more of a matter of "I don't care for it" or "I don't think it is as good as it was before the change", then we're back into the land of opinion. (And while siting multiple reasons for displeasure might sway folks over to a certain viewpoint, it'll still be an opinion.)
Remember, facts can be proven. Opinions don't need to be (but shouldn't be presented as fact.)
