Wikipedia:Peer review/The Wizarding World of Harry Potter/archive1

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is possibly good enough to achieve Feature Article status but I wanted to receive some feedback before nominating it. Thanks, Themeparkgc Talk 00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi automated peer review [1] Yousou (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief note: While awaiting my detailed review (hopefully ready tomorrow) you should check the adjacent toolbox and fix the disambiguation links. Also, the links in refs 5 and 14 do not go to the sources - please investigate. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Themeparkgc Talk 02:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments With an ultimate goal of FA, there are some important issues to be addressed:-

Lead: This needs to be expanded so that it is a summary of the whole article, rather than a brief introduction to the individual attractions in the Harry Potter area. The lead should briefly mention the background and other stuff. The opening phrase of the article needs to be stronger; describing the Wizarding World as an "addition" to something makes it sound secondary, unimportant. Perhaps: "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter forms part of..." Done Themeparkgc Talk 04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article construction generally
- The article has two significant omissions. The first is that there is nothing about the three-year period of construction. We move in a single step, from an announcement on 31 May 2007 to an opening on 28 May 2010 - evidently a year late, but no explanation or details given. You need to research these three years and give us the story of the construction, if you are to meet the comprehensiveness criterion. Done Themeparkgc Talk 04:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second omission concerns reception/reaction. The facility has been open for a couple of months, so there must be many press and other media reports about it, and its public impact. None are mentioned here. What has been the public's reaction - favourable, ecstatic, disappointed? What are the figures for the numbers of visitors in the first weeks of the attraction - I guess they must exist somewhere? Done Themeparkgc Talk 06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the latter part of the article there are far too many very short subsections. I can understand you wanting to discuss the three principal rides separately, but the "Dining" information isn't worth a section of its own, let alone a division into subsections. Likewise the section headed "Shopping and other attractions". This sort of information could be conveyed in a couple of short prose paragraphs; spreading it over so many minisections is not justified. Done Themeparkgc Talk 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, although I don't like to sound discouraging, it looks as though a great deal more work is necessary if you are serious about achieving featured article status. In addition to the basic problems I have identified, the prose needs some atttention, e.g. "re-creation" not "recreation", and it's a mistake to introduce J.K. Rowling as "Rowling". There is no such word as "broadcasted". However, at this stage prose issues are secondary to the major overhaul and expansion that the article requires if it is to be considered as a FA candidate. It will be a challenge, but I would certainly encourage you to give it a go. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Themeparkgc Talk 04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYTHING {{{DONE}}}. After a few more checks I will nominate it for a feature article. Themeparkgc Talk 06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]