Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2015 [1].

Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Hogwarts Express attraction at the Universal Orlando Resort. Dom497 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Iridescent[edit]

Is there a better source for "The entrance to the station, which is a quarter-scale replica of the real London King's Cross railway station" than the current 'source', which is clearly just a reprinted press-release (even if it weren't obvious from the "sponsored content from discoveramerica.com" disclaimer) right down to the use of the Am-Eng "one-fourth scale" in a British newspaper? The actual King's Cross Station is a melange of Victorian plate-glass and post-modern spun-steel which looks like the Starship Enterprise has crashed into a Victorian crematorium, and assuming this photo is representative has no particular resemblance other than the colour of the bricks and the arched roof. (The "King's Cross" used in the films was actually the more photogenic St Pancras railway station, so there's no particular reason a ride based on the films would choose to replicate the actual King's Cross.) ‑ iridescent 11:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Hi Iridescent! The entrance to the station is a quarter-scale replica; not the interior.--Dom497 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question; is it, as stated in the article, an actual representation of Kings Cross Station (which in reality looks an upturned soapdish), or the unrelated building which represented "King's Cross Station" in the films? ‑ Iridescent 00:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question—looking at this photo, it's a very loose representation of a small section of the Euston Road side of the real King's Cross, rather than of the actual entrance. If you're going to claim it as "a quarter-scale replica of the real London King's Cross railway station"—which is pushing it quite a bit, as it only reproduces a tiny part of the real station and has significant differences—you need a source more reliable than a press release from VisitUSA. ‑ Iridescent 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment[edit]

I don't quite understand the difference between the grading of featured vs. good articles, but I would be more behind getting this article featured if it correctly used the infobox. Currently, it is using multi-park version vs. the single park version, even though it's only in one park. Elisfkc (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Elisfkc (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc: Hi Elisfkc, where is the infobox using the multi-park version. It appears to be using the single park parameters.--Dom497 (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it from what I saw as the problem. It's all good now. Elisfkc (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by: Why does this article use day month year for an attraction in the United States, which does not use that style of dating?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Very good question tbh. I don't even know. I've tried to understand why we user dd/mm/yy in many american articles but people never give me a proper explanation so I just gave up trying and just do it now. I'm all for using mm/dd/yy.--Dom497 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is the practice in the theme park rides area to do month day year, I'd switch it to American style.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

Lede

Diagon Alley and Hogsmere probably need links, as you do below.

History

"visible between one another." visible from each other.
"rumours began" should be rumors (change throughout as is American style), sounds vague, as does "speculation arose". Such things do not arise of their own accord, can anything more definite be stated?
"Almost a year later" given that eleven months pass between June 2013 and the announcement in May 2014, can something more definite be stated?
"suggesting the rumours were true." I would cut this as it really adds nothing but if you leave it, a semicolon is not appropriate as this phrase could not stand as a sentence on its own.
The events of the final paragraph are not in chronological order.
"spotted" may be overused. I take it to mean seen by chance from a public area, but that does not seem to be the case with the magazine.

Ride experience

The final sentence of the lead-in suggests that both destinations are four minutes long, rather than the ride.
"a shop selling food" real or mockup shop? Store might be better in AmEng than shop.
you state twice in relatively short proximity that there are twenty-one (which I would make 21) compartments. I would leave the three carriages, which is a useful reminder.
"motorbike" is this the word used for the conveyance in American editions of Harry Potter books? Because otherwise it sounds British.

Characteristics

English measurements, not metric, I would think should come first unless there is a consensus in attraction ride circles otherwise. Also, the word "tonne" is less frequently used in AmEng than "ton". Ditto "millimeters" for millimetres
Trains image caption: Possibly "pass each other" might be better than "transit".
"a replica of steam-locomotive" some issue here, also in AmEng we probably would not include the hyphen.
"instead of only as a" maybe ", not just as a"
"setup" set up?
"forwards" not a word in this context in AmEng.
"look as faithful as possible" I would suggest deleting "look"
"Frey AG was responsible for wiring the trains; specifically for the video and sounds components. The company also installed other technical equipment that allow the trains to be controlled by a computer system" This could probably be shortened and included in the previous paragraph.(unsigned: Wehwalt)

@Wehwalt, in this particular case I can see that there might be legitimate reasons to standardize it on BrEng rather than AmEng (although I agree it should be standardized to one or the other). I suspect the core readership for this particular page is people looking for information on Harry Potter related material, rather than people researching visitor attractions in Florida, and a valid case could be made to have it in en-gb for consistency with the articles on the books and films. ‑ Iridescent 00:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do other Disney/Universal rides based on British literature follow the same practice?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over List of Magic Kingdom attractions and List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions, the only non-Harry Potter ones based on British literature are Peter Pan's Flight and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, so the issue has probably never come up as those are tangentially British at best whereas HP is explicitly set in London. I'm not saying it would be right to standardize on en-gb for something in Florida, just that in the case of Harry Potter I can see a valid case for doing so to the extent that I wouldn't use it as grounds for opposition. ‑ Iridescent 13:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said I'm going to oppose. But we should have a standard practice on these thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- After remaining open around seven weeks this review has stalled, so I'll be arching it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 21 December 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:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 21 December 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.