Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions/archive3

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 archived by SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [1].

List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions

Featured list candidates/List of Universal Studios Orlando Attractions/archive1

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 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 and second nominations were closed due to a lack of reviewers/activity. Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead could do with an image

Still need an image. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It features two theme parks,..." Is Aquatica not part of the resort?

According to this, nope; however, Wet n' Wild is....so I better get on that!--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"opened to the public in..." in should be on

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Eventually, Universal filed a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws, an attraction that was based on the film." I'd be more specific as to why they filed the lawsuit, its intrigued me, so I'm sure more readers would like to know as well. Plus manufacture is not the best word, perhaps construction?

Per the previous sentence, "..several of the parks major attractions experienced frequent mechanical and technical problems, forcing the rides to close." Also, Universal sued the manufacturer of the Jaws attraction, not the construction company.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth including former rides on this list, seeing as some of them have their own wiki page?

Everyone has different opinions on this but IMO, former and current rides should have their own pages. It allows the respective articles to focus solely on one topic rather than dealing with two broad topics at the same time (if the two articles were combined).--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate lists is not such a bad idea, would be good to see both. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding a paragraph summarizing the types of rides that are in the parks to provide context to the table and go with the height requirement sentence.

@NapHit: I don't quite understand this. Remember, this is a list, not detailed information about the ride. Detailed ride information should go in it's own article. Also, there is already a column listing the type of ride that it is.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was just a few sentences stating that the parks consist of live shows, rollercoasters, dark rides etc. Just to give the reader a little bit more context. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Fails WP:or - 45 of the 56 citations are Primary sources from Universal Orlando Resort. I see promise in the list, but I don't see how this can pass FLC with the majority of the sourcing being Primary.— Maile (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Two other FL's have mostly primary sources, and though I know it is discouraged, there was no problem in those reviews.--Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't a part of those two . Sometimes things get past that shouldn't - it all depends on who does the review, I think. My opinion is but one. So, we'll see what anyone else has to say. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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.