Talk:Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 10, 2012 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited
August 23, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Amusement Parks / Universal Parks & Resorts (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Universal Parks & Resorts task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Novels / Harry Potter (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

Some sources[edit]

Maybe not the best, but [1] and [2] describe the ride. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New sections[edit]

I believe that the article should be built up, with, perhaps, a "History" section, as well as sections for "Ride mechanics" and "Cast and crew". Thoughts?--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm thinking something the structure should be:
  1. History
  2. Summary
    1. Queue
    2. Ride Experience
    3. Ride Mechanics
  3. References
  4. External Links
Here's a reference to start the mechanics section off http://www.robocoaster.com/content/large-and-theme-park-solutions. Just a quick question, what would the cast & crew section include? Regards Movieworld (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the "Voice cast" section of The Simpsons Ride article. I believe it can be written in a similar manner as this, as well as including the crew members involved. I also believe that "Ride mechanics" should be a sub-section under "History" rather then "Summary".--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've looked at the Simpsons Ride, I think that it's structure should be adopted:
  1. Summary
    1. Queue
    2. Ride
  2. Production
    1. History
    2. Ride Mechanics
    3. Voice cast
  3. References
  4. External Links
Movieworld (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

British or American spelling?[edit]

I am debating about whether the article should employ British spelling or American spelling. As the Harry Potter franchise is British, and the ride was collaborated on by several British cast and crew members from the films, however, the ride is located at an American theme park (Islands of Adventure), and was also designed by Universal Studios' American Universal Creative company. Thoughts?--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking American would be most suitable. Have a look at WP:SPELLING. I think it should be based on locality rather than theme. Movieworld (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
My vote would also be for American, as it's an American park. Propaniac (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, American. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

hotel guests admitted vs soft openings[edit]

The reference at [3] has confused the fact that Universal on-site hotel guests were allowed in at 8am until around noon starting on the 28th of May. There were no soft openings over that weekend, and had been none at the time I went on June 3rd (although I think that for about 4 minutes the public was let in around 10am on one day that week. They then let members of the public in from time to time, opening the gates for a few minutes, but still kicking everyone out by around 12. It wasn't until the last week or so that they started keeping it open all day, and I'm not sure when they started letting the general public in from 9 on. There is no date that can be called a soft opening date because of this, although we can say that it was opened to Universal hotel guests from the 28th of May onwards. It was great being there with no crowds! Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It does look as though a few people got in on the 1st and 2nd as well. But it's hard to call that a 'soft opening', IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I was there on June 14th, when they were doing soft openings for basically all day. In early June, people were only let in for limited amounts of time, but the following week leading up to the grand opening ceremonies, it was open all day.--Snowman Guy (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
That's what I recall from reading the forums. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue Area[edit]

Would be interesting to know what screen technology was used for living portraits. Low brightness OLED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.112.149 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OLED was most likely used, but it should be cited if written in the article. Another technology in the queue that should be noted is the technology which provides the lifelike projections of Dumbledore, Harry, Ron and Hermione, which I believed was achieved with Musion.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 13:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    See comment section. Good.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Ref 12 is not working.

That's basically the one issue!--Dom497 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed ref 12 with an archived copy. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)