Talk:The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Universal Orlando Resort)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: — e. ripley\talk 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a quite nice article, although there a few details that need to be addressed.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- There are a few spots that need to be brushed up according to the WP:MOS. For instance, double dashes (--) should be changed to – or — and ampersands should be replaced with "and." There are also a few spots where punctuation is improperly left inside quotation marks (should be "stuff", or "stuff". as opposed to "stuff," or "stuff." -- I personally hate this portion of the MOS but hey, they didn't ask me). Also, in the "Previous Potter attractions" section, is this blockquote at the bottom a direct quote from someone? If so you need quotation marks to show that it is, and you also need to identify what you're quoting from; an inline link isn't enough. Otherwise it makes it look like you're quoting from the book, since you have a colon where you lead into the quote. The lead section is also way too short, particularly when sitting aside that enormous infobox.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Generally speaking the sources are wide-ranging and culled from inarguably WP:RS. However, is HPANA considered reliable? How about Jim Hill, a blogger? I am a bit concerned that he's being used rather often/prominently here, particularly in the "he said she said" section about deals falling through. Is he a particularly well-respected blogger on this subject?
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Looks stable now.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- The gallery could use some pruning. Some of those images seem redundant, and one (the Monster Book of Monsters) is even a little blurry. WP:IG states that One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall good job, certainly made me want to go see it. One further question: Has there been any criticism? I noticed there was a Slate article that might not have been so positive. I don't see why it can't be passed once these items get resolved. I'll leave it on hold until July 23rd for you to resolve these items.
- Pass/Fail:
- Thank you for the review, although I personally can't commit to any significant work on the article in the near future. I wanted to point out that according to MOS:QUOTE, blockquotes should not be enclosed in quotation marks. I've revised the punctuation slightly leading up to the quote; to me, it seems clear (especially in the new version) that the quote is from Jim Hill, describing how Rowling wanted to duplicate the experience she depicted in the Potter book. Propaniac (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Very good, I think the problem I'm having, which other people might also have, is that at present the attribution is hanging out in the middle of the sentence. I would suggest a formulation more like this: "Later reports suggested that the venture fell apart over Disney's reluctance to accommodate Rowling's vision for the attraction, which would have brought each guest into the park through an experience mimicking Harry's introduction to the wizarding world (as depicted in the first Potter book), according to blogger Jim Hill: ... Retains the meaning but gets the attribution much closer to the quoted text. — e. ripley\talk 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've done some more work on the article to rectify some of the items stated in the review. As for the quote, I have replaced the <blockquote></blockquote> tags with Template:Quote. I have also rearranged the sentence before as suggested by E. Ripley. Finally, I have notified Snowman Guy (the owner of the majority of images in the gallery section) of the review and have asked him if he would like to move them to Wikimedia Commons. I have linked the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category in the external links section using the appropriate template. Themeparkgc (talk)
- Thanks everyone for helping getting the article to GA status. Themeparkgc (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've done some more work on the article to rectify some of the items stated in the review. As for the quote, I have replaced the <blockquote></blockquote> tags with Template:Quote. I have also rearranged the sentence before as suggested by E. Ripley. Finally, I have notified Snowman Guy (the owner of the majority of images in the gallery section) of the review and have asked him if he would like to move them to Wikimedia Commons. I have linked the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category in the external links section using the appropriate template. Themeparkgc (talk)
- Very good, I think the problem I'm having, which other people might also have, is that at present the attribution is hanging out in the middle of the sentence. I would suggest a formulation more like this: "Later reports suggested that the venture fell apart over Disney's reluctance to accommodate Rowling's vision for the attraction, which would have brought each guest into the park through an experience mimicking Harry's introduction to the wizarding world (as depicted in the first Potter book), according to blogger Jim Hill: ... Retains the meaning but gets the attribution much closer to the quoted text. — e. ripley\talk 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)