Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions/archive2

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

The list was not promoted by Pres N 01:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for Featured List status because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. The list consists of all attractions from the Universal Orlando Resort. The first nomination was closed due to a lack of reviewers. Dom497 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A lead image would be nice.

I tried looking everyone a couldn't find any good usable images.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence reads repetitively as you've only just used the phrases "theme park" and resort in the previous sentence. You certainly don't need to repeat "the resort".

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate the use of adj=j in the {{convert}} template as this gives you non-breaking spaces, which is a good thing.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"problems forcing the" comma after problems.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Eventually, Universal filled a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws," filled or filed? And why? I'm perhaps missing the connection between this and the previous sentence.

Done first part. Regarding the connection, the first sentence was about how several of the rides experienced problems. The second sentence gives an example of the Jaws ride which was the most serious of the cases.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link dark ride, it's not a common term to us non-experts.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" as well as the Hogwarts Express" this links to the "real" Hogwarts Express, perhaps you should say something like it was based on the Hogwarts Express?

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"48 inches (120 cm) to ride" is it worth saying "tall" here?

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Height conversions seem inconsistent: 54 in == 140 cm while 52 in == 130cm? 2 in is actually around 5 cm so how can these conversions be correct, particularly when you have "Over 51 inches (130 cm)" as well...

This all has to do with the convert template. I believe it might be because of rounding of sigfigs.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Despicable Me Minion Mayhem" appears to have a colon after Me.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't New York Daily News be New York Daily News?

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Hopefully will get to this soon. I've been pretty busy for the past several weeks...--Dom497 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Finally got to it. Thanks for the review. Let me know if you have any other concerns. :) --Dom497 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that the last two lines in the lead section be merged into the second paragraph, the rest is great. Support. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of suggestions, based on my list-creating experience:

I think it should be split up into two tables—one for Universal Studios Florida, and one for Islands of Adventure. Since there's only two categories and they are separate parks adjacent to one another, it might look neater that way. (The Hogwarts Express could be listed in both categories with an explanatory footnote.)
I kindly disagree. In all my lists I only split the "dry park" and water park in separate tables. Also, I actually think it would look messier. :) Maybe we could get the opinion of someone else? :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List should have more than just three photos, since it is quite long and there's lot of white space.
White space is different for everyone so just because there is a lot of white space for you doesn't mean its the same for me. List of Canada's Wonderland attractions has only 3 pictures. Either way, there aren't a lot of good quality pictures from the park anyways.--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is height requirement notable enough for this list? I feel like that wanders into the WP:NOTGUIDE category and don't think it's is necessary for this table.
Again, List of Canada's Wonderland attractions and List of Kings Island attractions.--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there enough sources available to include opening dates for each attraction in a new column?
For the more recent attractions yes, but for the older ones no. There are also many attractions that have had soft-openings. So even if a news article lists a date, it technically could be wrong.--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about former attractions? (unless there's a separate page for that)
Separate page. This list is only about current attractions. :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of Univeral Orlando attractions seems like a more suitable title, as that is the proper name of the resort and the parent article, Universal Orlando.
Actually, the official name is Universal Studios Orlando. I have no idea why the parent article is titled that.--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a source that says this? Everything I've looked at, including the resort's official website, says that name is "Universal Orlando" or "Universal Orlando Resort". The list needs to be moved to reflect one of these names. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud:There actual appears to be a discrepancy. A google search reveals the official website to be called Universal Studios Orlando, but when you go into the site, it's called Universal Orlando. Upon further searching, the media most of the time refers to the resort as Universal Orlando. So I'm fine with moving it...it just seems that the resort changed it's name quietly.--Dom497 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation in the lead about what the "Location" means. I've been to the resort so I understand, but any other reader would be confused as to why Disaster! is "located" in "San Francisco".
Would "section" be better?--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general the lead seems a little short, only 1800 words, which just just above the bare-minimum 1500 requirement for WP:DYK. I know that's not a benchmark, but for the amount of history and details behind the parks, I think that more information in general could be included.
I don't know what else to get into without being redundant with the parent article.--Dom497 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Type or model" column seems to lack consistency among the descriptions of rides, and some are not clear to the reader. For example, what is a "Flying Fish" ride? I've never heard of it and there's no Wikipedia article for it. On the otherhand, dark ride is appropriate, but should be kept simple.
Epic fail on my end. I didn't put the references in when I re-did the list. I will get to it within the next few days.--Dom497 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the references provided include the "Type or model" of the ride. I didn't check them all, but for example, the reference for Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey makes no mention of RoboCoaster.
See above.--Dom497 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

–Dream out loud (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the pages List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions and List of former Islands of Adventure attractions, and I can't help but think that the prose-format of those lists work better than the table format. Since maybe half of the attractions on the list do not have articles, it may be appropriate to expand the page into a prose format, with descriptions of each ride, and hat notes for those that do have articles. It doesn't make sense that Wikipedia should have a page with prose descriptions of former attractions, while some present attractions are just mentioned by name on a list with no extra information. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with this. The majority have articles and it would simply become redundant. Plus there are already some descriptions at Islands of Adventure and Universal Studios Florida. I know that it seems the Universal Studios Orlando collection of the articles is a mess but, remember, I only focused on this list; if I had the time of course I would re-write every article. :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has hit the two-month mark without enough activity, so I'm going to have to unfortunately close it. You're in good company- I'm also going to have to close my own nomination just above you for the same reason. No prejudice against renomination; maybe we should review each other's nominations if you nominate again. --Pres N 01:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.