Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2018 [1].

Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)

edit
Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Hogwarts Express attraction that connects both parks at the Universal Orlando Resort. Dom497 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I corrected one typo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, since this review began, three new images were added, which are listed below:

All three are from Flikr and have appropriate licenses. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • General: In a number of instances you have included sometimes lengthy quotations from the sources. These are unnecessary, especially where you have links to the source. They merely add clutter, and I recommend you delete them.
@Sladen: Could you please explain why you added some of the quotations?--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sladen: It's been 20 days. I know you don't want to reply but please do just for the interest of the review. Also just as a FYI, I honestly don't remember if I took part in some conversation years ago about including these quotations. Maybe I agreed to them; you're good at finding this stuff so if I did agree maybe you can find it. However, even if I did agree then, present day me is in favour of removing them as suggested by the reviewer.--Dom497 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:CITE#Additional annotations help to preserve the WP:INTEGRITY of the article, regardless of the number of edits from editors with a theme-park background. Many of the explicit quotes were added in response to queries from editors about not being able to a particular, so the exact wording was often added in the |quote= to assist in surface those words directly to the editor/s requesting clarification. Having these quotes there works several ways:
  • Our readers have the opportunity to read what the sources actually stated eg. about the reasons for its creation, purpose, and construction—regardless of how many intermediate edits have been made.
  • First time editors to the article may take the slight extra the effort to read these most important snippets, hopefully taking on aboard what the sources state the background and rationale. This perhaps helps with discouraging edits based pureply on presumptions stemming from seeing that the locations of the end stations happen to a join the borders of two theme parks.
  • With articles that have a habit of moving/disappearing and foreign language citations, having the wording has enabled the citations to stay (or the new URL to be found). Without those clues the citation would have been lost, along with the hard information it brings to the article.
  • WP:INTEGRITY: the content can be kept better aligned with the citations, and citations to be moved back to the correct text after periods of enthusiastic editing.
  • Per WP:Readers first our readers will get what they actually need to know, without the risk of being mislead, or the mistrust resulting—such as showing up to one of the theme-parks and finding that a normal ride ticket (quite understandably) doesn't work…, and if they do "enter the ride", finding out they ended up somewhere different with no easy way back.
Many articles do not need this level of citation detail. This one has.proved its worth. It would appear that Dom497 was accepting of the value of some of these citations, based on Special:Diff/672517555/672519450. An explanation for the hesitation in answering this was individually explained to Dom497 in Special:Diff/824462005. —Sladen (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2: The retrieval date is given in British format – should be consistent with the others.
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7: Why is this source reliable? I am somwhat put off by the following, from the "about" link: "While this page is called “About Us”, Screamscape.com is really the work of just one person: myself. While I have lots of help from people who sent in information from around the world and from my good friend Mark who covers events for me on the West Coast, the work on the Screamscape website is done entirely by me." This does not suggest a high-level, quality source with appropriate editorial supervision.
The use of these sources are only meant to support information regarding rumours. For example, Screamscape was reporting on rumours about this future attraction and the reference is only used to support these kinds of statements. Sources like this (including Screamscape) are used in both SheiKra and Falcon's Fury which are both Featured Articles.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear as to why statements that are "only meant to support information regarding rumours" can be acceptably cited to inferior sources. The fact that this source is used in earlier FACs is not relevant here – neither of those articles you mention had anything like a rigorous sources review during their various FACs. My advice is to remove or replace the source, but I won't labour the point if other editors don't object to your reasoning. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Rumours aren't typically reported by the media because they are just rumours. As crazy as it sounds, in the theme park world, Screamscape is one of the most reliable rumour sites out there. Theme parks (such as Universal and Disney World) will also often invite Lance (the person who runs the site) to get a preview of new attractions.
The sentence that the Screamscape source is referencing is: "During the same month, speculation arose that an expansion would include the Hogwarts Express to connect Hogsmeade in Islands of Adventure and Diagon Alley in Universal Studios Florida"
I think having the Screamscape reference for this and only this sentence is acceptable because the sentence is just stating that "speculation arose" (the reference shows that Scremascape published some rumours about a possible Hogwarts Express attraction). If there is a consensus that Screamscape is not acceptable, I don't have an issue removing the sentence.--Dom497 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, the LA Times has previously used Screamscape to get some of their information as well.--Dom497 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8: I have similar concerns about the reliability of "Parkscope"
I have removed the sentence that this reference was referring to since it was not being used to reference rumours.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
nb. removed in Special:Diff/822549080 which linked to the construction permits for "South Station", "North Station", and "Connector"
Brianboulton, background to this is at Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1#Planning applications. Originally the article cited the official information (planning documents and permits) directly. The blog content arrived after the hard cites had been removed in Special:Diff/669712807 and Special:Diff/671704082 (both by Dom497). Perhaps the low-quality of the Parkscope cite may be solvable by removing the blog links and restoring the original text and detailed citations… Suggestions welcomed, would be happy to go ahead with this solution. Please can you give a yes if you're happy with this too. —Sladen (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've done your best to deal with my various concerns, and I won't ask that you do more. Happy to sign of the source review at this point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using any of the sources listed at the discussion Sladen linked to would be unwise since none of them have any evidence that the permits had anything to do with the Hogwarts Express.--Dom497 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, we are being asked to accept (make an exception for) the Parkscope and Screamscape blogs that rely on those permits/applications/official communications for reporting "rumours" covering the demolition, grading, construction of two stations and connector train track. But not the actuality of the demolition, grading, construction of two stations and connector train track themselves. This is quite an interesting logical puzzle. Which of these actually serves our readers in enabling them to find and read useful hard information?—Brianboulton, independent input would be really appreciated. —Sladen (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested we use Parkscope. That source should have never been included in the article (that's on me). I am unable to find any evidence that the permits Parkscope linked to actually had anything to do with the Hogwarts Express. Therefore using the permits at all would fall under Original Research.--Dom497 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25: As the main link isn't working, I advise you to change the url to that in the archive link
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31: The publisher, more correctly, is "About travel"
 Done It looks like the entire "branding" has changed. I've updated accordingly.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39: Can you check that this is the intended link page, and if it is, can you indicated where your given headline is found?
 Done The episode is no longer available online so I removed the link.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Really done |archive-url= added for the textual content in Special:Diff/825963274 plus new updated NBC links for the video contents. —Sladen (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old sources review

edit

I've noticed that a major point of contention between the nominator (Dom497) and the article's original creator (Sladen) is related to sources that were used in the article previously, but have since been removed. If you like, add links to those old sources in this section (direct links to them, not links to old versions of the article) and I will tell you whether they "cut the mustard", based on my own experience going through FA reviews. I will also give specific reasons for why I think each source is suitable or unsuitable to be in the article. I should also mention that I don't want to see any finger-pointing in this section. Just add the links and nothing else, please. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jackdude101. I'll start this off with a question. Are unreliable sources allowed in "Further Reading" sections?--Dom497 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but none of the links in the Further reading section appear to be unreliable. I'll give my two cents about each one below:
A.H. (17 April 2015). "A High Technology Nostalgic Experience" (PDF). Seilbahnen International (NSAA/National Ski Areas Association exhibition ed.). pp. 17–24. 168-FUL: Project 722-C: Hogwarts Express … Number of places per trains: 168 p. [originally targetted] Carrying capacity 1,747 p/h … idea of linking both parks. … considered various means of transportation. Then, one day, the idea to use the Hogwarts Express hit home … every seven minutes the train starts … 4 1⁄2 minute train ride … 2 trains consisting of 1 locomotive, 1 tender and 3 coaches for 56 passengers and one attendant each … More than 70 percent of the cables serve show effects in the 42 compartments
  • This one is a published magazine with tons of legit technical info about the ride. Why is it not used as a source in the article body? It should be taken out of this section and incorporated as a source in the article.
Sim, Nick (October 12, 2014). "The 5 Strangest Secrets of Universal's Hogwarts Express". Retrieved June 30, 2015.
  • At first glance, this source did not look reliable, but upon further examination, it is. The admin is described as the editor-in-chief and they have a team of writers, which is a clear indication that their articles have editorial oversight. It could probably be moved from this section and used as a source in the article, too.
Interior and exterior design plans for King's Cross station:
  • These design drawings are interesting, and the author describes them as being copyrighted by Universal Creative, but I would not use them as sources just to be safe. They don't appear to be unreliable, though, so a compromise would be to keep them where they are, in the Further reading section. As long as they are not used as sources, I don't think many people will protest these being linked there.
There you have it. Jackdude101 talk cont 22:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackdude101: Ok. I've written articles and op-ed's for Theme Park Tourist just by emailing Nick. I've written this, this, and this. My point is that anyone can technically write articles on that website about anything they want. Nick lets you write them after talking to him about it. He then does a grammar edit on it and posts it. As much as it says that Nick Sim wrote that article linked in "Further Readings", he is technically the author of the third article I linked to that I wrote; therefore it's impossible to know who actually wrote it.--Dom497 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm assuming you were looking at this page? I don't see how this page shows that the contributes are in anyway credible; let alone this page says the website is currently run by one person (Natalie....which is who? A credible reporter or a volunteer?). You should also consider the fact that Screamscape is run by a "team" and posts stuff from random people that email him (Lance; the equivalent of Nick Sim or Natalie). That source was removed because it was deemed unreliable. If TPT is reliable than shouldn't Screamscape be as well? As a side note, theme parks often invite Lance for special events and the LA Times have even referenced his work (but no reliable publisher has ever referenced TPT).--Dom497 (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497: The thing where Nick used to grammar edit submissions counts as editorial oversight. I say "used to" because it looks like he died in 2016. Natalie is his widow, who co-ran the website with him and is now the editor-in-chief. The key difference between between TPT and Screamscape is how they present their information. TPT presents things as individual articles with their own dedicated pages. Screamscape on the other hand has one long page for each major park and every new piece of info is simply added to the appropriate long page. In short, TPT looks like a news site and Screamscape looks like a blog. Contrary to what all of us have been told from the time we were children, appearances do matter. Regardless, you have a point about how the two websites gather their info in a similar way, and since the TPT link is not being used to reference anything in the article, I wouldn't mind if it were removed. Things in Further reading sections tend to be extraneous, unnecessary fluff anyway. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Those are the only the issues I had (that I can remember of right now).--Dom497 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice; obituary; and tribute written by Sim's widow:

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

I enjoyed reviewing this article before, and I enjoyed reading it again. A few comments:

  • "Universal began considering how to keep attendance balanced between the adjacent parks.[4] " You haven't established, in the body, what the two adjacent parks are.
It's mentioned in the lead: "The route runs 676 metres (2,218 ft) between Hogsmeade station in the Islands of Adventure theme park and King's Cross station in the London area of the Universal Studios Florida theme park". Let me know if sentences still need re-wording.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between one another." Maybe "from each other."
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the resort had begun asking visitors about a possible expansion." maybe "surveying"for "asking"
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the same month," I might cut "In" or change to "During".
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 8, 2013, Universal Orlando announced the expansion of Wizarding World of Harry Potter, Diagon Alley, along with the Hogwarts Express attraction, to be located on the former site of the Jaws attraction.[9][10][11]" a verb seems called for in the latter part of the sentence.
The sentence reads fine for me. I don't see where a verb would be needed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first of the two trains was installed on October 24, 2013.[13] By the beginning of December 2013, the second train had been placed on the track.[14]" I might cut the first "on the track" both to avoid repetition and because it seems redundant. Where else are you going to install a train but on a track?
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spotted one of the trains being tested for the first time.[17" was the spotting or the testing for the first time?
 Done I removed "for the first time" since the ref doesn't really prove this claim.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a shop selling food." a real shop or a visual of some sort?
Ref 28 shows a quick glimpse of the snack bar and ref 30 explicitly states this ("working snack bar"). Perhaps "snack bar" might be better than "shop selling food".--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reasonable approximation to what one finds in a typical British railway station (ie. the King's Cross theme), and which sells the cheap food and beverage brands normally found in such establishments (Golden Wonder salt & vinegar crips, Boddingtons Bitter, Stella Artois, Tetley's Brewery in cans). Perhaps the crucial bit missing here is that it is flogging British brands to a captive, queueing stream of awaiting passengers. —Sladen (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The queue then leads into a forested area which later leads into the Hogsmeade station building." Might cut "later".
 Done--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the train departs towards King's Cross, Rubeus Hagrid waves riders goodbye outside of the window." I might cut "riders", also, you link and give Hagrid his full name on second use, when you've just had him (sans link and first name) greet the incoming riders. Similarly, the principal characters are given last names here when they weren't in the preceding section. I suspect you've switched the position of these sections at some point, but either way, please check them over for anything Ive missed in this regard.
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transit above" maybe "pass over"
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three passenger coaches each with 14 passenger compartments. " Unless I've missed something, you've earlier stated there are "twenty-one" passenger compartments in three coaches, and you've said it twice. Also, why is twenty-one spelled out and 14 not?
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2 trains × 3 carriages × 7 compartments × 8 passengers. Reviewing Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)#Compartments, this round of (removing accurate citations and) inserting inaccurate content has been dealt with. —Sladen (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side as the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing only exist on one side." To avoid repetition, "As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side; the other lacks the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing."
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to make them look as faithful as possible to the Hogwarts Express seen in the Harry Potter film franchise." I might change "faithful" to "similar"
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frey AG was responsible for wiring the trains; specifically for the video and sounds components." A semicolon requires what follows to be able to stand as a sentence on its own. Also, I would expect "sound" rather than "sounds" in American English, unless it is a specialized theme park term.
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph of "Reception", you could make it clearer that what's being talked about is walking through walls.
"broke walls" does not mean walking through walls. Rather it was a term used by Robert to describe the overall environment as discussed in the rest of the paragraph.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I made very similar comments in some areas at the first FAC, so I guess some of those were not addressed. I would review what I, and others, said then and implement as needed, where not mooted by the passage of time, or where your judgment says otherwise.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt and Brianboulton: Thank-you for your reviews! I will begin addressing your comments on the weekend.--Dom497 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: From your previous review you stated: ""forwards" not a word in this context in AmEng." What word would you suggest to use instead?--Dom497 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally willing to support, but am concerned about Sladen's comments, especially since he mentioned me individually. I'd like to hear if he is satisfied.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An additional point. You use "metres" and "tonnes", which are less common than "meters" and "tons" in the U.S. Unless there are specialized theme park or transportation reasons, I'd go with the U.S. versions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I just went over it and made some minor adjustments, after which it looks good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

I just happened to see this since I have almost all articles about Disney and Universal attractions on my watchlist. Some quick things:

  • They can travel in either direction as long as the guest has purchased a Park-to-Park ticket, which gives guests access to both of Universal Orlando's theme parks within the same day. - I actually rode on this attraction multiple times last summer. The thing is that even with the park-hopper ticket, once you leave one park, you can't re-enter that same park on the same day (the ticket allows 1 daily admission each to Universal Studios and Islands of of Adventure). You can only ride in a single direction. Now, I took the sentence in green to mean that visitors with park hopper tickets can re-ride as many times as they want on the same day. I think this should be clarified. (Edit: official website confirms one admission to each park per day. And season and annual pass holders can also ride, not just park-to-park ticket holders. epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, I can't seem to find where it states what you are describing. I've also removed the reference (for now, I can add it back if needed) as an existing reference mentions that Season Passes are also valid.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius: indeed; Special:Diff/673394720 was a previous attempt to clear this up, with the wording "riders must have [a] pass valid in their destination in order to board." A one-way train ticket is normally valid for a one-way train journey. Repeated edits trying to describe a transport system in the same terminology that a roller-coaster/fairground attraction would be described, ultimately do not help the situation. —Sladen (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sladen: I see what you're saying. However, if you have a ticket for both parks, they would be checking whether you have a ticket valid for both parks; the direction of the train itself does not matter, but you can only ride in one direction unless, I presume, you have a season or annual pass. What I'm saying is that they don't check that you started in Islands and went to the Studios, they only check if you have a two-way pass and whether you have ridden the train earlier that day. epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, there doesn't appear to be a definitive list to use as reference for every valid type of permissible ticket/pass/voucher (or at least one has not been located yet)—in which case saying the minimum and not risking misleading is perhaps a better solution. That said, the wording should be such that it is clear that this is fundamentally not a ride, but an alternative to two long walks and a trip out of the front gate, and back in the other entrance booth. (Of course the owners would much prefer visitors used the provided connector train for the purpose it was built: to keep visitors captive within the parks belonging to one company; balancing the visitor times across the two environments; keep them spending money rather than going elsewhere; and selling a $55 upgrade to those who had only purchased a single-park ticket). To accurately reflect that reality (and the associated ticketing reality) within the article may well require some work to "de-theme-park-ify" the article, lest it risk continuing to confuse readers. Suggestions welcomed. —Sladen (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​​Yeah, this is a hard issue to tackle. The Hogwarts Express is basically Universal's version of the Walt Disney World Monorail System: the extra fee is for the privilege of visiting two parks in one day, and the train ride is just a bonus after you pay the extra fee. On the other hand, the train is entirely between two parks, unlike the Disney Monorail, which stops at hotels along the way, so that's why it's being treated as a theme park ride. So, the article could be clarified to this extent. epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the ride experience is unsourced, particularly the first and second paragraphs of the Kings Cross to Hogsmeade and the Hogsmeade to Kings Cross sections. If this were a film or TV show, it would fall under WP:FILMPLOT, but I think a ride experience is different. There should probably be a video citation, just to be safe.
Rather than repeating the same reference(s) over and over again, the references for the ride experience are all listed at the end of their respective descriptions.
I guess you could also use WP:CITEBUNDLE so you only have to display one reference. I don't have a problem with listing them all at the end of the section, but if you're only using each of the sources once, it would be convenient if you ever needed to repeat them. However, I don't know if other reviewers will agree that it's OK to cite it all at the end. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Things might have changed in the two years I've been gone but way back when, after several GA nominations and discussions, it was agreed that if previous sentence(s) use the same reference and no other references, the reference only needed to be included on the last sentence.--Dom497 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't recall ever having a discussion about what should happen when multiple paragraphs are involved. Therefore, it might just be better to include the references at the end of each paragraph.--Dom497 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, yes, the lack of citation is a problem: eg. today Special:Diff/823589398 (IP edit) changed one character name to other—hard to verify what the name should be. Originally this material was not in the article, most of it arrived in Special:Diff/669720516 (by User:Dom497). —Sladen (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you watch the video and listen you will know that its Ron talking and not Harry.--Dom497 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side as the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing only exist on one side - This is only partially a result of the locomotives facing a single direction, isn't it? Both platforms are on the same side of the train, namely the left side, which is why this is possible.
This is implied by both the previous sentence and the images included in the article of both stations.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice these images, so I didn't make the connection until I actually made the journey. I think you have to spell it out. The aforementioned previous sentence, The Hogwarts Express enters King's Cross in reverse but forwards at Hogsmeade; the train departs King's Cross forwards and in reverse at Hogsmeade, doesn't mention the platform location. In fact it's irrelevant to whether a train enters a station in reverse.
But now there's another thing. The sentence in green has an inconsistent structure (i.e. it should be King's Cross backwards but Hogsmeade forwards, otherwise it would be "The Hogwarts Express enters ... forwards at Hogsmeade"). Also the second half might be redundant: if the train is always facing toward Hogsmeade, wouldn't it always reverse out of that station? epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have modified the paragraph in question. Let me know if still needs some revision.--Dom497 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new sentence is better, though I personally would swap "enters King's Cross" and "departs from Hogsmeade". Like this: "As a result, the Hogwarts Express departs from Hogsmeade and enters King's Cross in reverse". epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed it to what you suggested.--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That, by the way, is what I meant by my objection in the first FAC. Epicgenius said it much better than I did.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I have more feedback I'll leave further comments. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt, Brianboulton, and Epicgenius: I have addressed all of your comments!.--Dom497 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by Epicgenius

edit

More comments:

  • A week later, Universal Orlando soft-opened the Hogwarts Express, without any announcement. - So when did it hard open? Was it on July 8 as scheduled? Sometimes, agencies change the opening dates behind people's backs. This is kind of a stupid request, but I just need a little confirmation that it isn't still soft-opened.
So....three years ago and still today I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that Diagon Alley was the "big new thing" so the media focused on that that day (not to mention the media got distracted with the new coaster in the area because it had a 7+ hour wait). There were no reports that the ride did not open on July 8 so its kind of just assumed it opened along with the rest of the new area.--Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I'm a liar! Ref 21 says the ride opened on July 8.--Dom497 (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing this issue. I was kinda confused at first because sometimes, the assumptions could be wrong. epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
epicgenius, revision Special:PermanentLink/669320997 had this wording

"It opened for technical rehearsals from 2 July 2014,[open 1] officially opened on 8 July 2014 when queues lasting seven hours occurred and by 9 August 2014 had transported one million passengers.[open 2][open 3][open 4]

Seemingly shorter, more precise, unambiguous and only needed saying once. This text, and all four of the accompanying citations were removed in edit Special:Diff/672940882 (by Dom497). Now we read "I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8" (by Dom497).
Had the original wording remained or even just its accompanying citations, we would probably not be a situation two years down the line reading that citations cannot be located. Feel free to restore some of these citations/material if they are now felt useful again. —Sladen (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Kubersky, Seth (2 July 2014). "Hogwarts Express soft opens at Universal Orlando". Orlando Weekly.
  2. ^ Felton, Tom (9 August 2014). "The Hogwarts Express Hosts its One Millionth Rider". Felt Beats.
  3. ^ Universal Orlando Resort (9 August 2014). "Hogwarts Express Millionth Rider Celebration Group" (image) (Press release). Retrieved 30 June 2015.
  4. ^ "Hope you brought a book! Harry Potter fans wait in line Seven Hours to get on new theme park ride". Daily Mail. 9 July 2014. Retrieved 30 June 2015.
@Sladen: Reference 2 is unreliable but that doesn't really matter since ref 3 is used for to support the same sentence. The Hogwarts Express did not have a 7 hour wait. That was Harry Potter and the Escape from Gringotts.--Dom497 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably also worth noting that none of the reliable sources say the ride opened on July 8. Ref 3 which might have stated the opening is dead and Wayback does not have an archive of it.--Dom497 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you say "Now we read "I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8"", the reference was always in the article and the citation was in the correct place, I just accidentally missed the sentence that mentioned it when reviewing the reference. Accidents happen and thats why my comment is crossed out.--Dom497 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current wording is fine: the announcement was for a July 8 opening, and the soft opening was on July 1. The July 8 hard opening is implied, but is not mentioned explicitly. And a 450-minute wait for Escape from Gringotts? I couldn't even wait for 45 minutes! epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert Niles from Theme Park Insider mentioned how the attraction "broke walls"; including the separation of the Wizarding and Muggle worlds, how Universal made the audience the performers (in the part of the King's Cross queue where guests walk through the wall leading to Platform ​9 3⁄4), and how, "It's become convention for theme park attractions to drop you off at or very near the same point where you boarded the ride, so it's a bit disorienting when you exit the Hogwarts Express and find that you're not only in a different train station — you're in a different theme park." - Consider splitting up this sentence because it's very long. Specifically, the second half sounds like a run-on.
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a little concerned about that sentence. I just think this would be an ideal place for semicolons: like "Examples included the separation of the Wizarding and Muggle worlds; how Universal made the audience the performers (in the part of the King's Cross queue where guests walk through the wall leading to Platform ​9 3⁄4); ..." However, other than that, I support this article's promotion. epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-colons added.--Dom497 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind if I created a KML file for this ride? It's standard to have a KML file for railroad lines/attractions.
I don't have an issue with that.--Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I will create the KML file soon. epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done, for the record. epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The KML appears to be considerably less accurate than the OpenStreetMap relationship that has been linked in the article for several years now. Clicking on the 'global' in the top-right, and zooming in several levels shows large differences eg. around the passing loop area between what the KML seeks to provide, and the more accurate mapping previously and already available via OpenStreetMap. Ideally the quality of the KML could be improved so that there is not a net loss of information available to the reader. —Sladen (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The KML is accurate to 5 feet, which is very accurate considering how much you zoomed in. It is supposed to depict the track from about a half-mile scale. Other KMLs have a range-of-error of more than 50 feet, especially longer routes. I have fixed the file, but if you don't like it, you can be bold and fix it yourself. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issues with the rest of the article right now. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

Coordinator notes: We have three supports here and some detailed review. These are the outstanding issues that I can see before we consider promotion. Sarastro (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not convinced by the use of Screamscape.com in the article, and I think this needs looking at further.
  • @Dom497: The fourth sentence of the second paragraph in the History section and the whole first paragraph in the Reception section (the two places in the article that use Screamscape.com as a reference), could be easily removed and it would not disrupt the flow of the article or take away any critical information. I'm a fan of that website, also, and I'm well aware that many of the rumors from Lance Hart's contacts are legit, as they end up being true most of the time. However, if having information from Screamscape.com in the article is going to keep it from advancing in this FA review, as Sarastro is suggesting, I recommend that you bite the bullet and just get rid of it. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. I see that Dom497 has been inactive for almost a week, so in the interest of keeping this review from potentially stalling, I took the liberty of removing all Screamscape.com-related content from the article as I suggested above. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt:, I see that @Sladen: has editing activity since he was pinged by you and Sarastro on this page, and he has not responded here in the Coordinator notes. Would you consider giving your final word on this review without Sladen's input, just to keep the process moving? All of the issues raised appear to have been addressed now. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackdude101: Thanks for helping out. I've been on vacation this past week (forgot to mention this!).--Dom497 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sladen
edit
TL;DR: Good read, but not Good article: fails WP:GA editorial standards per MOS:OUTUNIVERSE.
  • Strong comment. This article is a Good read, a fantastic read—indeed, as has been particularly highlighted by Wehwalt starting with "enjoyed reviewing this article before, and I enjoyed reading it again". It is rewarding to learn that Jackdude101 has "used this article as a structure and style reference [and] cleaned up several of the Disney rail transport articles". This confirms it has firm roots and good structure—and has had a positive wider legacy on other articles.
But, this is not a WP:Good article "that meets a core set of editorial standards".
Because of the location (connecting two theme parks) there are multiple levels of "kayfabe": (*wrestling terminology, but it'll do here)
Luckily. MOS:OUTUNIVERSE gives us good guidance on how to deal with this: in short, we should stay out of the illusion and keep ourselves in the real-world. We have plenty of real-world, hard, reliable information available as cites. We just have to choose to read, cite, and follow the sources. …Reflecting the WP:INTEGRITY of those sources, and instead of trying to bend the article to meet preconceptions, or presumptions.
In the short timeframe that this FA review has been open, we have these examples suggesting that reading the sources is not taking place:
  1. Special:Diff/821480904, addition of a "Height restriction"
  2. Special:Diff/822551547, changing the number of carriages + compartments
Making these two changes is/was only possible by ignoring/deleting already-cited sources: "There's no limitation, no ride-height limitation. You get on the train, and it's a train", and the rationale for the increase in number of carriages. (Highlighted by Wehwalt in the last review about leaving compartment/passenger count information for context…)
Getting the worst of these fixed requires lots of Talking … Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)#Compartments is not alone, there's the whole of Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1. epicgenius' efforts to get Geo data onto the article are laudable: Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1#WP:GEO data shows how the previous efforts had been deleted. Good, accurate, hard, reliable information deleted, or replaced with presumptions and guess work, or nothing.
The various levels of "kayfabe" all sort-of work, until each sort-of starts breaking: ticketing (explicitly checking, extra payment at provided ticket booths), height restrictions (explicitly none), technology (train, funicular, built by a cable car manufacturer), blacked out windows (screens required because of passing over industrial backlot).
This article was (originally) researched (without presumptions) and as-written reflected the (sometimes surprising) results found. Its purpose is pretty unique…
With this latest FA/GA review we are at a cross-roads: do we rubber-stamp for perpetuity an article shoehorned to document a train/people mover as a roller-coaster/fairground/attraction (despite knowingly being aware of the illusion breaking around the edges), or do we put our foot down and require that this is tightened back to the source material and/or original Infoboxes?
As Dom497 asked in Special:Diff/672519395 "I thought you thought that the {Hogwarts Express} was literally a train" … it's not about what we throught, it's about what the original cites state, and reflecting these.
We should place Wikipedia:Readers first and remember the requirement for "editorial standards", not just making a good read. Ordinary, this would be Demote from GA. Don't promote to FA.; but not one to stand in the way if there is broad consensus to allow this to proceed based on the three earlier Supports.
—Sladen (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're taking things out of context. Regarding the height restriction edit that you link to, yes, an error was made (humans make errors; just like how you made 11 edits to your statement above) and the mistake was resolved within a timely fashion (as seen in Special:Diff/821516905). Is there a source that says "There's no limitation, no ride-height limitation. You get on the train, and it's a train". Yes. Is there a source that says ""Under 48" (121.9cm): Supervising Companion Required". Yes. As it turns out, the first quote was from an article the day after the attraction/train opened. However, the official Universal website lists a height restriction. Height restrictions change. There may not have been a height restriction at opening but between then and now, a "supervising companion" restriction may have been added. Do we go with what someone said in an interview (the day after opening) or with what the official website says (which contains the most up-to-date information)? I think the answer is obvious.
Also, recently you attempted to add unreliable sources into the article (Special:Diff/826284556) where after I reverted that edit, you still added it to a "Further Reading" section. In fact, the "Further Reading" section you added is composed entirely of either unreliable sources or personal blogs. Per Wikipedia:Further reading, including the personal blog may be ok I guess (even though we have no way to verify the authenticity of the draws/blog so I'm interested in hearing what other people think of including links to this blog at all in the article). The link to Theme Park Tourist seems questionable given that it is an "almost equivalent" to Screamscape. It seems that you just added links to websites that you either attempted to add into the prose or use previous human-errors as justification. For example, per the Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)#Compartments discussion, you wanted to add back three unreliable sources. In that discussion, you say "In summary, had the original wording remained or even just its accompanying citations". This shows that you had no regard to reason why the sources were removed in the first place.
Regarding Special:Diff/822551547, this was another error I made which has since been resolved.
Finally, I think that a lot of the issues that Sladen and I bring up are because he has a "transportation" bias and I have an "amusement park" bias. A question that Sladen has been asking for years (and alluded to in his statement) is basically, "Is this an amusement park ride or a mode of transportation". I hope Sladen can agree that we need someone unbiased to answer this question once and for all.--Dom497 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of potential MOS:OUTUNIVERSE violations, the only ones that I believe could be seen as such in the article are the middle paragraphs in the King's Cross to Hogsmeade and Hogsmeade to King's Cross sections, where the multimedia presentations that guests see during the ride are described (i.e.: what can be see through the "windows"). That's an easy fix: just mention at the start of each paragraph that the windows in the cabins are actually monitors that present video of several Harry Potter characters in such a way that they appear to be traveling alongside the train as its moving (since Dom497 is back now, I'll let him decide how we wants to deal with that). As for Dom497's comment above, about whether this is ultimately an amusement park ride or a mode of transportation, I'll throw in my two cents on that. I'm a big fan of amusement parks, roller coasters, carousels, and historic vehicles, especially steam trains. Because this article covers several of my interests, I'm quite fond of it (although, I wish Universal had chosen to build genuine steam locomotives instead of fake ones). The Hogwart's Express attraction at Universal Orlando Resort is an amusement park ride AND a mode of transportation, and is not exclusively one or the other. In one unrelated conversation about one of the Disney railroads, this also came up and I said something similar, but I felt that if I were forced to choose one or the other, I said that it's a mode of transportation primarily, as the locomotives (many of which are historic and were previously used on non-theme park railways) could be plucked from their tracks, put on any other rail line in the world with the same gauge, and they would run the same. This is not the case with Universal's Hogwarts Express, as their trains are literally attached to the line via the cables that control them, and per the List of track gauges article, there is only one other line in the world with the same track gauge. For those reasons, if I was forced to choose, I see Universal's Hogwarts Express as an amusement park ride first and a mode of transportation second. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackdude101, Epicgenius, Wehwalt, and Brianboulton: Thanks for your comments Jackdude101. Regarding the MOS:OUTUNIVERSE issue, I wonder if moving the "Characteristics" section above the "Ride experience" would solve the issue. The "Characteristics" section already talks about the windows in the "Media" subsection. I've pinged some other editors involved in this review just for opinions.--Dom497 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a test edit using a structure you might want to consider that would address that concern, here. But as I didn't really feel it was too in-universe to begin with, what my thought counts for is debatable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thats one possibility. Thanks for that!--Dom497 (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackdude101 and Dom497: The gauge issue is interesting, but shouldn't affect what mode of transportation this is (e.g. the Washington Metro and the trolley systems in Pennsylvania both use unique gauges). Since this is a funicular, I also wouldn't say that it's a real train. It's definitely a mode of transportation and an amusement park ride. However, since it serves the same purpose as walking to the other park via CityWalk, I'd say it's more of a mode of transportation, with significant amusement elements. I hesitate to call it an amusement ride first because you can only ride in one direction at any given time. I'd just put emphasis on the "people mover" part of the ride. epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Alright, that makes sense. I was trying to figure out a standardized set of rules earlier on what criteria a theme park rail line should have in order to consider it as an amusement ride or as transport primarily, but several of the well-known ones defy it all. Take the Disneyland Monorail System. It started out with only one station in 1959, but got expanded in 1961 and got a second station. So, if you consider a rail line with only one station as an amusement ride, but a rail line with more than one station as transportation, the Disneyland Monorail was a ride one day and transport the next. Plus, you have to disembark when you reach the Tomorrowland Station, but not at the Downtown Disney Station (except on busy days). It seems that in regards to defining theme park rail lines, it will have to be done on a case-by-case basis. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. To use another example, when the Walt Disney World Railroad operated trains that went in continuous loops without stopping at interim stations, it was purely an amusement ride. But when the railroad started stopping at every station, it became a mode of transportation. epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions. I took a look at Walt Disney World Railroad and it uses Template:Infobox attraction. This was one of the issues Sladen had (he wanted to use a transportation infobox). Given that Walt Disney World Railroad is already an FA I think we should keep the format the same for consistency.--Dom497 (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disneyland Railroad uses Template:Infobox attraction, as well, and is also an FA. I should also note that what type of infobox should be used never came up at any point during the entire review process (GA and FA) for these articles. The rail infobox could be used if you wanted, but I found that the attraction infobox is setup better for these types of articles. Ultimately, it's not a big deal, and as long as the appropriate information is presented in the infobox, the average reader isn't going to care what type of infobox it is. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing. Obviously, Sladen's comments are an oppose, and there is ongoing work on the article. I need to see what comes out the other end, and probably give it another read. I do have this review watchlisted, and feel free to ping.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok will ping when the these final issues are addressed!--Dom497 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Sladen's skepticism is clear, but officially, he has not declared that he opposes it, and actually implied in his latest comments that he would more-or-less abstain if everyone else continues to support it. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I've reorganized the article per the one MOS:OUTUNIVERSE issue that Jackdude101 brought up. I don't think there are any outstanding issues.--Dom497 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article arranged that way, with the Media sub-section above the Ride experience section, looks much better. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: Although Sladen did not write "oppose", like Wehwalt, I am taking that as an oppose. And given that it is a fairly detailed and reasoned argument, we either need to work on the issues raised, or establish a consensus among other reviewers that this view is incorrect. Sarastro (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: As I have already explained above, the two instances of "not reading sources" that Sladen mentions were stupid mistakes on my part; I have no problem admitting to that. However, I would like to see Sladen list other areas where "not reading sources" occurred since I don't know of any others. Other than that I don't know what other issues Sladen is brining up since I don't understand the slang that he is using ("kayfabe") and I don't see where there are MOS:OUTUNIVERSE issues. In the three bullet points that Sladen mentions (regarding "kayfabe") I don't see how any of those effect how the article is written and why those would cause any issues. Also, when Sladen says, "This article was (originally) researched (without presumptions) and as-written reflected the (sometimes surprising) results found.", he is most likely referring to a period of time when the article included references from unreliable sources (such as Theme Park Tourist). He's attempted to re-add that source recently and included more sources from unverified sources. Unfortunately, as I was preparing the article for a GA nomination a few years ago, some references had to be removed since they were not reliable. In some instances, that resulted in having to remove some information that Sladen would have liked to stay. It's a double edged sword (in a way). Do you leave the unreliable sources in the article so more information can be included or do you attempt to get the article to reach a criteria of higher standards? A good example of this is the Screamscape source that was recently removed. In this scenario I was on wrong edge of the sword (even though I still believe Screamscape was reliable for the context it was being used in, wanting to keep the additional info was creating a road block for reaching a criteria of higher standards). Finally, I understand that Sladen believes that this is a mode of Transportation. The first sentence of the article states, "The Hogwarts Express is an 1,800 mm (5 ft 10 7⁄8 in) broad gauge funicular railway, people mover, and attraction within the Universal Orlando Resort in Orlando, Florida, United States.". I don't know if Sladen has an issue with this statement, but I think this captures what the Hogwarts Express is. It's a little bit of everything. It transports guests while also delivering an experience. Something like the Walt Disney World Monorail System would only be considered as a mode of transportation since it does not deliver any unique experience that separates it from a traditional monorail. As Reference #1 in the article states, "This is fantastic. There's no limitation, no ride-height limitation. You get on the train, and it’s a train except the journey is magical. ... we worked on that and created the layout, the path. Where would the train go? Of course, it will go backstage, but the guests will never know because we're going to take them on the actual journey.". This statement also accurately describes what the Hogwarts Express is (as I've said above, its both attraction and people mover). On that note, I think it is fair to say that Universal intended this to attraction to mess with the real world. Their goal was to make guests forget that they were at Universal by making them feel that they are traveling through the Harry Potter world. Removing this context from the article would end up describing a different Hogwarts Express than what it really is in the real world.--Dom497 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497: Regarding "kayfabe", it's a wrestling jargon. It means the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true", specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or predetermined nature of any kind. So in this case, I think Sladen is saying that if this isn't a real "railroad", don't portray the Hogwarts Express as one. His direct quote is Luckily. MOS:OUTUNIVERSE gives us good guidance on how to deal with this: in short, we should stay out of the illusion and keep ourselves in the real-world. We have plenty of real-world, hard, reliable information available as cites. We just have to choose to read, cite, and follow the sources. …Reflecting the WP:INTEGRITY of those sources, and instead of trying to bend the article to meet preconceptions, or presumptions. epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sladen: Can you confirm what Epicgenius thinks your saying?--Dom497 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be grateful for a little more clarity in what Sladen is saying. BTW, possibly it's a new era but when I rode the WDW monorail as a teenager in the late '70s, my family considered it quite an attraction, and to be taken in preference to the ferryboat. Just as an aside, but it isn't that unusual for a means of transportation to become an attraction in its own right, even if it does nothing unique. Say the Star Ferry in Hong Kong. The Universal people seem to have created an artificial version of such a hybrid, a mode of transportation with the tourists hanging off the back.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sladen: Please explain why you re-organized the article and removed references or modified statements without references. To be honest it seems like your trying to sabotage the review. You also moved an image into a section of the article (Reception) that it has no relevance in. Changes like this should really be discussed, especially given the article is in the middle of a review. --Dom497 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dom497. Please see Special:Diff/828128944 below. Thank you for the enthusiastic contributions and additional suggestions. —Sladen (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for discussion

edit

As per Wehwalt earlier, Special:Diff/827997473/828125654 is an experiment to try and develop a set of possible changes for discussion (all self-reverted in Special:Diff/828126020…). In particular additional images, WP:NPOV-ification, and high-level contextual introductions for the top of the (presently empty) second-level sub-headings. Further suggestions are likely to prove somewhat complex (Special:Diff/828123252, Special:Diff/828125764, Special:Diff/828123656), which will likely require more Talking and individually responding to. —Sladen (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Meta discussion about process progression
edit
Experiments should really be done in Sandbox's not the main article. Wehwalt's edits, though should have been in a sandbox, was acceptable since it was quick edit and revert. However your editing started at 12:50 and continued until about 13:22 when I intervened. "Experimenting" for that long on the main page really doesn't make sense, especially for an experienced editor like you. --Dom497 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dom497, awesome. And any comments on the content itself? —Sladen (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: I'm going to request this review to be closed. Working with Sladen on this issue is likely going to take weeks or months due to the stubbornness of both of us.--Dom497 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you bring it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a real shame to see this withdrawn so quickly… We can see from Special:History/Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort), that an attempt by any other editor to propose substantive changes, or expansion or refinement to the article has not really been successfully attempted for two-and-half-years. With so many extra eyeballs, and the few remaining outstanding issues now would seem the perfect time to give it go! Extra contextual images are likely to enhance the article helping to bring it along the way to being a truly great article worth of passing FA. To get to the end that there appear to be only a few remaining refinements around MOS:OUTUNIVERSE aspects to address the presentation, suspension of disbelief and actor–audience relationship involved in bringing guests between the two parks via the Hogwarts Express. To get there, feedback on actual content improvements would be really great! —Sladen (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know this comment doesn't help anyone or anything but I find it interesting that when I try to get Sladen to answer a question that he would have a better answer to, it takes nearly a month for him to respond; even after asking on his talk page multiple times (re: very first bullet point in this review). Also, it kind of amazes me how in a matter of days he went from "Demote from GA" to essentially "lets try to promote to FA!"; thats not a bad thing but it seems like when there is something that doesn't fit his agenda he is super fast to act on it but otherwise, he sits on it for as long as possible. <end of rant>--Dom497 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; would there be an opportunity to contribute any thoughts on actual (suggested) content changes by other editors? —Sladen (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, now we have more Talk page templates: Special:Diff/828652596. —Sladen (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A sandbox has been created here so experimental edits can be made and to avoid including unsourced material that is included in the experimental content that Sladen was trying to add to the main article.--Dom497 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497:, @Sladen: I made one edit to the sandbox version, which mainly relates to reorganizing the images. Let me know what you think of it. Also, alt text needs to be added to the images (see the images in the stations gallery I made to see examples). Alt text is a requirement for all images, if the article is to achieve FA status. Jackdude101 talk cont 02:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jackdude101, looks good. Please work directly on the article so that the history and copyright are correctly preserved inside a single history without needing a histmerge later. —Sladen (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jackdude101, excellent reminder: Special:Diff/828672452/828708958 adds WP:MOSALT descriptions. The one in the infobox is not working. —Sladen (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sladen: Infobox attraction does not support alt text for the image (I don't know why it was never added to template).--Dom497 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497:, @Sladen: You have to do a simple work-around to make alt text for images in the infobox work. I implemented it in the article and I described how I did it in the edit summary. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, Jackdude101, Sladen, Epicgenius, Wehwalt, and Brianboulton: Hi everyone! The article has gone through some major edits since many of you last took a look at the article; it would be very much appreciated if you could take another look at the article to bring up any new issues you may have or to verify that your stance remains the same. Thank-you!--Dom497 (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get confirmation that everyone's on board?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with all of the recent new edits. Jackdude101 talk cont 17:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been moving in a good direction. Appreciations in particular to Jackdude101 for the input on what constitutes a good/reliable source. Hopefully the article will continue to benefit from the input of a wider range of editors. —Sladen (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sladen: I made one fix to the article here: Special:Diff/830258008 to make it compliant with MOS:OUTUNIVERSE. Let us know whether the combined recent changes from everyone now make the article worthy of your support. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jackdude101, looks good, thank you. —Sladen (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jackdude101, I'm on board. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hogwarts_Express_(Universal_Orlando_Resort)/archive2&oldid=924135026"