Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for the review! During the review, if you get confused with an amusment park/ride related terms just ask me and I'll clarify. For any train/railroad clarification, I'm sure Sladen (talk · contribs) will help out.--Dom497 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for your energy in getting this review done. —Sladen (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No DABs, external links OK.

One of the WP:ELs in your review was removed by another editor.[1] Sturmvogel 66, would you be willing to assist with some further review input at Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)#SBC news video? —Sladen (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images appropriately licensed.

Hope so! The libre images available are rounded up and organised at Category:Hogwarts Express (funicular). —Sladen (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a US-based ride, shouldn't it be in English units and spelling rather than metric and British?

Can you give some examples for the spelling?--Dom497 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion template defaults to British spelling, which usually reverses the r and e at the ends of words (metre vs. meter) and tonnes is metric tons. You can fix this by adding "|sp=us" to each template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of metric units, and international dates and en-GB are all intentional, right from the start.[2] (1) The railway components were designed and built in metric, and the source units in the available citations were in metric—as a railway for transporting people A→B it is engineering-related. (2) There weren't obvious national MOS:TIES (viz. something like United States Constitution): The funicular railway components and trains were designed and constructed in Switzerland and the branding (theme) of the stations seek to depict locations in the United Kingdom. (3) Indeed, if there were WP:TIES, British English and spelling ("pram drop-off") on signage/announcements at its present location. For articles I initiates, I do choose the English variety careful (so something nominally similar like Indiana University Health People Mover used imperial units). For the Hogwarts Express funicular I've now added an explicit {{use dmy dates}} and {{use British English}}.[3]

While I understand your logic, many people would contend that it should be in Imperial units simply because it's in the US, which means that it meets the criteria for strong national ties. I'm not one of them so you needn't switch, but expect a lot of attempts to do so later on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Within one month of its opening, one million riders had travelled on the trains. This strikes me as a superlative and needs to be cited in the lede.

But this statement is cited in the History section. As far as I know, if the statement is in the body of the article, it does not need to be cited in the lead.--Dom497 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, you're correct, but extraordinary statements like superlatives need to be cited in the lede. Thinking about it a bit more, a million in a month is only 30,000+ per day, which is easy for a four-minute ride, 168 people at a time. So no cite needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "one million" was previously heavily cited. Citations were removed by another editor.[4]. A heavily cited explanation of seating capacity previously existed.[5]. This was removed by another editor.[6] —Sladen (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Capacity could do with clarifying again (168 passengers per direction = 336 passengers in motion at the point the two trains pass each other at the passing loop).[reply]

@Sladen: I am very baffled with you saying that I "removed" stuff; when all I did was move it to another section. And I don't see your point about removing a bunch of citations for the 1 million riders; one reference is enough; WP:CITEKILL.--Dom497 (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal can be confirmed by reviewing the provided diff [7] and searching for the text seven compartments. This wording is present only on the left-side showing the text beforehand. —Sladen (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to one cite per paragraph, which is lacking in the descriptions of the ride. So do the footnotes at the end of each section cover the entire sections?

Yup. I figured it would look nicer just to include one set of cites. But if you want them in each paragraph I have no problem doing so.--Dom497 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a formal requirement, so I just needed some clarification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The #Ride Experience section was added by another editor[8]. Looking at the offered Youtube citation, it would appear to be WP:OR based on video recordings. I responded to a query around the same time[9], which would appear to concur. —Sladen (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sladen: It has been discussed so many times that for attractions, youtube POV's are acceptable (this exists in FA articles as well). They are not OR, because the video is obviously from the Universal attraction and the summary of the ride (that the Youtube ref supports) is not making any assumptions; it essentially translates video into words.--Dom497 (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube link is fine; I watched it and it supports the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the conversion is messed up here: 46 millimetres (4.6 cm).

46mm is 4.6cm.--Dom497 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but why is it being made? Why not into English units, rather than a double metric conversion?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's being made to show the conversion? (LOL!) Anyways, should it be going from mm to inches?--Dom497 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The haul cable-diameter was previously given as "46-millimetre-diameter (1.8 in)"[10] and was heavily cited. This was changed by another editor.[11]. —Sladen (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really understand why your bringing up "heavily cited". Your the one that used overkill.--Dom497 (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really give a damn about who did what, the conversion remains metric to metric. Convert it into inches and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: In the interests of moving along a review that appears to be held up by two characters, I've fixed the conversion. ~ Rob^Talk 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Sladen (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]