Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warner Bros. Movie World/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2020 [1].

Warner Bros. Movie World

Nominator(s): — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Movie World. Hollywood on the Gold Coast, with a distinctive Aussie lilt. The only place on Earth where you can blast ray guns at 3D Starros in a Cyborg simulation, drop backwards into stark-black from a Scrappy-Doo huff, and catapult out of the Metropolis tunnels on a Superman punch, all in a single day. Over a near-thirty year tenure since its star-studded 1991 opening, Movie World has grown into one of Australia's premier theme parks and most popular tourist attractions. Those old enough will recall the good ol' days when "experiences" that captured the magic of cinema were sought over high-octane scream machines. Five year old me still revels in awe at the studio backlots along the tram tour, and screams in garish delight as I plummet down the Wild West Falls and zip through the veins of Gotham on Batman Adventure. Throughout the 2000s, the park's status as a thrill-seeker's playground burgeoned. Today, its skyline is dominated by arguably Australia's strongest coaster lineup, including the crown jewel, DC Rivals HyperCoaster. The menacing 60 m near-vertical drop in the backwards-facing final row should be on every enthusiast's bucket list, and one I can't wait to experience again (when us south of the border are allowed across it).

Spurred on by a number of visits over recent years, I decided this article deserved an overhaul from the ground up. Save for a couple of cleanup edits in early 2019, I first started work in May this year and I'd like to think I've taken it a lot further than before I started. My work was conducted with almost no FA's to model on, as no modern theme park article has yet reached this standard. I'm relieved to finally be at a point where I can take this no further on my own. A quick note on sources: many news stories were accessed via archives and eLibrary databases hosted on ProQuest. Please Wikimail me if I can assist with spot-checks. Another note on images: there are hundreds available in the commons, so please note I am flexible with adding to or replacing the current selection. It would be an honour to have written Wikipedia's first Featured Article on a large, modern theme park. Thank you in advance and I greatly look forward to a spirited FAC commentary. — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spicy

A couple passing comments:

It recorded 1.3 million visitors in 2007 and was the third highest attended theme park in Australia, behind Sea World and Dreamworld. - Why are we citing 13-year-old figures in the lead? I thought at first this might be the peak of its popularity, or the most recent figures available; but this isn't the case since we later learn that in 2013 it "recorded more than 2 million visitors for the first time in its history".
The word various appears 12 times in this article. Most, if not all, of these uses are unnecessary and could be removed - e.g. Various costumed characters regularly roam the park -> "Costumed characters regularly roam the park"; It was variously described as the world's first "movie-based theme park" built outside the United States[26] and the first "American-style" theme park -> "It was described as"...
Warner moreover recognised the value proposition in the theme park than in the studio. - seems like there is a "greater" or similar missing here? or should that be "recognised the value proposition moreso in the theme park than in the studio"?
Between 400 and 500 new jobs were created upon its opening.[25][18] - check that ref numbers are in order
Opening attractions at Movie World focused on education about and involvement with the behind the scenes of filmmaking - I find this sentence very awkward, primarily because of "education about and involvement with" and the use of "behind the scenes" as a noun... perhaps this could be rephrased to something like "focused on educating guests about the behind-the-scenes aspects of filmmaking" etc
Linking "tour" to "tour guide" seems odd, and I'm not sure it needs to be linked at all per WP:OVERLINK
In 2003, the Harry Potter attraction closed and was in September by The Official Matrix Exhibit - missing word?
Hollywood Stunt Driver closed and was replaced by its sequel on 20 February 2014, a revamped show that featured Showtime FMX motocross riders who perform more thrilling stunts than before. - tense shift
The Roxy Theatre off Main Street screens Yogi Bear 4-D Experience. - does it only screen this one film? I find the sentence structure in this paragraph a bit repetitive - every sentence except the final one opens with "[Attraction] [verb]s..."
Guests use RFID wristbands to help the villains destroy the area - how does this work exactly? I would think RFID wristbands would be used for tracking purposes
Superman Escape catapults from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 2 seconds up a top hat - I know it's linked, but you might want to explain in the prose that a top hat is a roller coaster element because it gives a very weird mental image to someone who is not up to speed on rollercoaster terminology!
with sales of about 2.6 million units of stock across its 25 outlets generation $17 million in revenue - generating?
By 2000, about one third of park tickets were sold via the "Super Pass" deal, although a 20% decline in attendance that year was attributed to Y2K hysteria - not sure the the use of "although" is appropriate here. An overall decline in attendance doesn't necessarily contradict the fact that a different method of ticket purchase became more popular
The only notable incident at Movie World occurred on 15 March 2015 - do the sources state that it was the only notable incident?

Sources

Can you explain how the following are high-quality reliable sources:
"Sound: Theme park". TCI College of Technology. 28 (7): 26. August 1994. ProQuest 209637397 (registration required).
- The journal is ... a college? This doesn't seem right. Is this a thesis/dissertation (if so, what makes it a high-quality reliable source)? Who is the author?

Overall the article seems quite comprehensive and easy to read. Nice job. Spicy (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two reviews in less than 24 hrs! Didn't expect a niche topic to pick up commentary that early, so thank you! I've actioned per above. Some follow-up:

2007 was the first and only instance in which exact attendance numbers were published specifically by Village Roadshow. They otherwise combine figures across all properties in their Theme Parks division. We have figures from other years either coming from RS or being cited by park executives. Just to clarify why 2007 was being given. The last specific yearly number given was 2 million in 2014 (which is so far the apex), but there was an "average" figure of 1.4 million given by Gold Coast Bulletin in 2016. Which figure do you think would be the most relevant to cite in the lead/infobox?

I think the most recent figures would be most relevant. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that "various" is being over-used per se, however I've struck 7 examples. Let me know if you think more could go.

reopened on 15 July at 50% guest capacity with various social distancing and sanitisation policies, DC Comics Super-Villains Unleashed displays various DC supervillain statues amid criminal acts. what purpose does the word "various" serve here? Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It used to say "moreso", however this is not considered a standard English word, so later on I substituted with "moreover". I checked Merriam-Webster and, that I can see, the grammar was correct here. However, I've recast and hopefully this is clearer.

Fair enough on "moreso". The revised version sounds much better. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how many times I've spot-checked to make sure refs were in chronological order. =P Text/cites have been moved around many times throughout editing, so I must have missed this. If you find any more, please let me know.
I previously tried different syntax structures for the "behind the scenes of filmmaking". I've reworked per your suggestion.

I'm still bothered by the use of "behind-the-scenes" as a noun. This seems informal at best; I've only ever heard it used as an adjective.

Yes, this is the only current screening at the Roxy. Afraid I'll have to differ with you on the prose throughout here. I've opted for great economy of words and think the prose flows well. The attraction-verb structure negates artificial connection from one attraction to another, and alternating per your comment may cause confusion. If you insist, I could introduce more variation, but am still concerned we'd be losing concision and flow as a result.

OK, we can agree to disagree on this. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't used the RFID interactive feature myself, so am only 90% sure. From what I know having watched other patrons use the wristbands (and from reading the source) it's an upcharge experience where the statues are activated by wristbands and "come alive". There's one statue (I think it's Killer Croc) that sprays patrons with water. I can furnish this as an example if it helps to clarify however, in having said this, I kind of like the ambiguity in the text here.

Thanks for explaining, this is a pretty minor detail so maybe not worth including. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the "weird mental picture" (again, I think the ambiguity piques reader interest), but I added "element" at the end so perhaps it's clearer. If you want me to go further, let me know.

Seems better. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how it ended up as "generation". I blame auto-correct! (That's a cop-out, I fixed it! =D)
Here's the direct quote from the Amusement Business article: "Warner Village Theme Parks is having good luck selling its three Gold Coast, Australia, theme parks in package deals, despite this year's 20% decline in attendance attributed to Y2K concerns. About a third of park passes sold to Australians are under a "3 Park Super Pass" deal that includes a ticket for Warner Bros. Movie World, Sea World and Wet'n Wild Water World, plus an extra ticket that can be used for a fourth day at any one of the parks". They're sort of making this connection, however I've tried to rephrase accordingly. Let me know what you think.
The source does not state that it was the only notable incident, however it was the only notable one (so far—touch wood). Everything else was just ride stoppages that were sensationalised by journalists as being more serious. However, I've rephrased accordingly to keep attribution with the sources.

I still find it a bit clumsy to call it "notable" - the fact that we've chosen to include it in the article already implies that it is notable. Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your insight on sources and the last four should be easy:

RCDB has been vetted, is highly valued by WP:APARKS for its accuracy and has been cited in multiple FA's and GA's (see SheiKra, Millennium Force, Steel Vengeance, El Toro etc). They've been highly scrupulous with maintaining an accurate coaster database for the past 20 years.
Theme Park Review is only being used for coaster POVs to verify ride experiences. Further, the site is run by highly notable enthusiast Robb Alvey and has also been used similarly on FA's and GA's before (ie Millennium Force above). Can't speak to TPR articles, but again they're not being cited here.

OK; I'll leave the verdict on these two up to users who are more familiar with theme park articles as I'm not really equipped to evaluate them. Spicy (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read my case for finder.com.au at a related discussion here, but to reiterate, they have stated editorial oversight, content policies etc, and Chris Stead is a veteran journalist who has written for multiple RS.

Ok, fair enough. Spicy (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The TCI article being cited is an academic journal published by the college itself, not by students, and is clearly written as such. If you'd like to check yourself, please Wikimail me and I'll help with access. No author is credited for the article.

My apologies—authors were credited. They were buried in the blurb. Added just now. — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to ProQuest and have looked this up. First I'd like to say that not all journals are created equal and I'd be extremely skeptical of an academic journal published by a for-profit technical college. However this isn't listed as an academic journal in ProQuest but as a trade journal - which is actually a good thing since IMO a trade journal is an adequate source for this sort of information...
My next question is, how did you determine that this journal is published by the TCI College of Technology? The name of the journal is TCI but if I look at the scan of the front cover (available on ProQuest) it indicates that TCI stands for Theatre Crafts International, not Technical Career Institutes (and the article is marked as "Copyright Theatre Crafts Aug 1994")... Spicy (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this was an oversight on my part. When I added the source, I didn't check the front cover as you did. First, I looked up the ISSN, which was unclear as it didn't give a publication name, then searched for TCI New York. TCI College of Technology was the top result and the logos appeared to match. Really appreciate your clarification here and I've corrected the reference. — CR4ZE (T • C) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's the easy ones. Now it's a little trickier. I'll do my best.

Had a feeling Parkz would be questioned. I opened discussion about Parkz at RSN some months ago, which didn't really build much consensus as there was only one respondent. If you have the time, I ask that you please read through the relevant discussion here to avoid me restating a case for it again. However, what I have already done across multiple revisions is reduced Parkz citations to a bare minimum and used them mainly for opening/closing dates. Locating replacements for these dates was exceptionally difficult: Gold Coast Bulletin aren't exactly going to publish a news story every time a kids' ride moves or closes. I'll state for the record that if you have a hardline case against Parkz, I will concede and replace them wherever possible. However, replacing all will not be possible, and there will inevitably be gaps in the article about opening/closing dates that cannot be filled.

So, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page stating The content of this website is provided for information purposes only. No claim is made as to the accuracy or currency of the content on this site at any time. This doesn't speak well to the site's reliability. Similarly the page on their editorial policy (which says that they accept user-generated submissions, but fact-check them before publication) says we make no guarantee that the information in the database is up to date and/or correct. If the site is not even willing to describe itself as a reliable source, I unfortunately don't think we can use it on Wikipedia, let alone in a FA which should use not just reliable sources but high-quality reliable sources. Spicy (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ReviewTyme was also broached in the finder.com.au discussion linked above. Admittedly, I can't see myself building a strong case here but the critical commentary about the park was quite valuable to the article. I believe ATT would be the relevant policy here as opinions are being cited, not facts. Naturally, if you think ReviewTyme needs to go, again I will concede, but the article will be losing something as a result.

Sure, it's an opinion and not a fact, but per WP:DUE we should not include just anyone's opinion. According to their about page the website founders' qualifications are that one of them runs a popular Youtube channel and the other worked at Disney World for a year... I don't think this is the sort of expert knowledge indicated by the guidelines at WP:SPS. In that discussion you mention their sizeable audience and quality of their YouTube content but that doesn't really relate to any of the WP:RS criteria - by analogy, the reception sections for, say, video game articles stick to reviews from established outlets with strong editorial control; they don't include what someone like Pewdiepie has to say about it, even though he has a huge audience and makes (according to some) quality videos. Spicy (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale here seems fair. I've removed the ReviewTyme source in question. If you happen to find any critical commentary from RS about the park, please do let me know, as this was one thing I wish the article had more of. (I've exhausted various databases, journals, search engines etc.) — CR4ZE (T • C) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful commentary, please keep it coming! — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy, following up here as inline comments can get convoluted. Pleased to confirm that I've actioned on all of your recent commentary. Your assessment of Parkz is understood and appreciated. Though it wasn't easy, I've struck every Parkz reference from the article (by extension, had to cut some info about openings/closings etc as well). Added a pinch to the lead as well. Let me know what you think of my changes! — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spicy, I was wondering if you have formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spicy and apologies for pinging you again, but I wonder if you are able to answer my query immediately above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

MOS:ALLCAPS ... "DC Rivals Roller Coaster REAL Front Seat & BACKWARDS POV! Warner Bros Movie World Australia"
Concerned about reliability of sources as covered by Spicy.
There are items in See also that are already linked in the article hatnotes.
MOS:CAPTIONS, sentence fragments have no final punctuations, full sentences do. Hollywood Stunt Driver relaunched in 2014. sent fragment.
- I added a period to that one actually. Is that not a full sentence? It has a subject and a verb... Spicy (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's hard to tell ... it could be better written :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can use these scripts to fix dates and dashes yourself.[2]
In 2020, Fright Nights was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions,[168] however White Christmas is scheduled to go ahead.[169] ... was scheduled to go ahead as of <date>
Redundancy, see among other properties ~~all~~ operated by Village Roadshow. See User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing
Why is the lead telling us about attendance in 2007? It recorded 1.3 million visitors in 2007
WIkilinking: Warner Bros. is not linked on first occurrence in the lead.

I haven't read further because it doesn't appear the prose is yet FAC ready, and I am concerned about the reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insightful commentary. To follow-up:

Didn't realise per MOS that journal headlines needed to be rewritten in title case, but I've happily done so. Let me know if you spot any others (I found one you hadn't mentioned).

Journal headlines don't need to be rewritten in title case; they do need to be consistent. I was pointing out that you need to reduce ALLCAPS to either sentence case or title case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I could remove the See also section? Happy to do so. There were more article links in previous revisions although their relevancy was questioned at GAN.

Articles that are already linked in the body of the article don't need to be re-linked at See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, linking to a WPian essay isn't giving me much to action on. If you find specific examples of prose that raise a concern, please do let me know.

The point of linking you to essays and writing exercises is so that YOU can search for prose redundancies etc rather than having others do it; that is, I am more interested in teaching you to fish than cooking dinner for you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was reshuffled during GAN and I must've forgotten to move wikilink.
Other comments covered in response to Spicy as above.

Concerned about your understanding of WP:SPS and reliable sources. It is irrelevant how many articles use a source and how many FAs use a source, and what a WikiProject says about a source. You need to demonstrate that the source is reliable per SPS, that is, by demonstrating that this is met: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. We need to see a list of reliable independent publications that have published the work of these SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to RCDB, so here's several RS that have quoted its work.[3][4][5][6][7] Please let me know if you have further insight on anything else in the article. — CR4ZE (T • C) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, RCDB is a notable topic with its own article. There are quite a few sources you can check there as well that would support its reliability as a source. Also List of roller coaster rankings is an FL that heavily banks on RCDB for its information, and as such, has been vetted once before in this discussion. That discussion may not be enough in and of itself, but it should weigh in to some degree here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, appreciate the time you've put in to leave feedback. Please keep the comments coming! — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, me again. I note that you seem to have some qualms about this nomination. It has recently passed a source review and I was wondering if that helps you to move towards a formal position re promotion. Fine if not, this is just a heads up. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog the Mild, both Sandy and Spicy were pinged at the latter's talk here some time ago. Spicy suggested that input from members of projects relevant to the topic would be helpful here. I have already asked at AWNB and APARKS for feedback, with little success. — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I seem to be constitutionally incapable of tracking pings, and need to be bugged on my talk page if you really want me to revisit :)

I'm not comfortable with the prose.

Italian-American film producer Dino De Laurentiis visited the country in 1986, aware of industry buzz over the film Crocodile Dundee and having worked with industry alumni in recent years.

What industry alumni and how do they related to Australia? --> After working with X, de Laurentis became aware of industry buzz and visited the country ? More straightforward? I can't get the point of this sentence.

The next sentence is again less than straightforwrd:

With De Laurentiis Entertainment Limited (DEL) and aided by a AU$12 million Queensland Government investment,[b][3] he commissioned and constructed a film studio in Oxenford, near Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast, Queensland.

He obtained a AU$12 million investment from the Queensland Government (give the details here rather than in a footnote). With De Laurentiis Entertainment Limited (DEL), he constructed a film studio in Oxenford, near Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast, Queensland.

Similar in next sentence:

However, amid financial jeopardy caused in part by several box office bombs (such as Million Dollar Mystery), De Laurentiis left the failing DEL in December 1987, production on Total Recall halted and $3.4 million worth of studio sets were dismantled.

After the company's finances were jeopardized by several box office bombs (such as Million Dollar Mystery), De Laurentiis left the failing DEL in December 1987. Production on Total Recall halted and $3.4 million worth of studio sets were dismantled.

This is perhaps an Australian English thing ... should who be which?

Village Roadshow, who had an established partnership with Warner Bros.

Skipping to the next section:

Opening attractions at Movie World focused on educating guests about the processes behind filmmaking.

How do attractions focus? I don't know what this says/means. The first attractions focused on educating guests about filmmaking? I dunno ...

Why are Reception and Incidents grouped in one section-- what is the relationship?

A subsequent investigation revealed a design flaw ... the investigation could not have been anything other than subsequent, a redundancy.

These are samples only, bouncing around. I don't think the prose is ready yet, and think an independent set of eyes could be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia (do you want me to continue pinging?) and, certainly, a fresh set of eyes is always helpful.

Yes, some of your commentary is predicated on AmE vs. AuE differences. We use plural relative pronouns in the Australian nomenclature, similar to BrE (ie the Beatles were an English rock band, not was). Note spelling as well: (jeopardise).
I've flipped around a couple of sentences per your suggestion. Industry alumni refers to Australian film industry alumni... the Australian industry is literally stated in the sentence prior so I can't see how readers would be confused. Your suggestion doesn't quite match the procession of events according to the source. Nonetheless, tweaked a little.
Couldn't see the issue with the QLD Government bit, but I opted instead to roll this into the footnote instead.
The source describes the box office bombs as the main factors contributing to DEL going under, but not the only ones (hence the "in part"), but I'm comfortable with your wording.
Suppose you're right that reception and incidents don't tie together so well, so I've flipped to level-twos for now. This leaves the incidents section quite small; if you prefer, I could integrate the two notable ones into the history prose.

Keep it coming. Thanks again. — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will circle back as I have time, but I intended those as samples only ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but it gives the implication that I haven't done the work to prepare for FAC, which is untrue. Across multiple revisions both prior to and during, I've made improvements that weren't even brought up here. Please let me know when you have time to continue your review. — CR4ZE (T • C) 03:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy: several additional editors have reviewed this one since you last looked at it, so I was wondering if you felt able to make a call? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Several of the alt texts are quite similar to the captions - either improve the description or just refer to caption
File:Bugs,_Daffy_%26_Yosemite_-_Movie_World.jpg: given the details at commons:COM:DW, I'm not convinced images like this would be free by Commons' standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Please see diff provided in response to Spicy above. I've commented out the image in contention for now and raised this at commons. As noted above, there are plenty of possible replacements—do you like any of these (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)? Admittedly, the alt text was sloppy but I've made an effort to improve it across all images. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you again! — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've added one new image. Do you have any further comment to make on images? Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest posting your query at Commons' Village Pump rather than the DW talk page, as you'd be more likely to get a response. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the replacement I've made, so a response to the query makes no difference. Are you able to clear images/alt text now or is there more to come? Thanks again. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Doing now, btw you have a few dup links. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done
Standardize your ISBNS to ISBN 13 in refs 5 and 6 (use the converter)
You're inconsistent with retrieval dates. Really all web/news refs should have one (SMH and Proquest probably don't need them) and at the moment only a few do, with seemingly random consistency
I'm unsure why there's sometimes a red lock vs the text "subscription required" – one should be chosen and standardized. And the "registration required" should follow accordingly (the words vs the grey lock)
the reliability script I'm using is marking "Theme Park Review" in refs 117 and 121 as generally unreliable. Would think for an FAC they should substituted for higher-quality, reliable sources.
Formatting and reliability looks good otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aza24, thanks for taking the time to do a source review. Just some follow-up:

I'm satisfied retrieval date usage is within policy but happy to listen if you could explain otherwise. To quote {{Cite web}} documentation for |accessdate= parameters: "Access dates are not required for links to [...] news articles with publication dates". That's why they're not being used on almost all refs (in fact, they used to be but I removed them manually). The archiving on all online refs should cover the functionality of accessdates, as we have an exact date and time to verify the text back to. Hence why even non-news refs don't have the parameters. In essence, all the reasons for using access parameters are redundant if the refs are archived. As for the 18 instances where accessdates are given, this was done because the sites couldn't be archived (ie GCB articles are paywalled) and are used simply as a courtesy. If it's consistency you're needing here, I could remove those parameters altogether, although I don't see the necessity.
The red/grey locks occurs when |url-access= is being used. It was my understanding from reading the documentation that this would be the correct parameter to use for url links. The Proquest articles don't use url paramaters, so that's why their access notice is given as a text, not icon. Happy to substitute url-access for {{pay}} if you'd prefer.
Where is this script by the way? I'd be keen to use that in my own editing, if you'd care to share. To speak specifically to "Theme Park Review", sure, I could find replacements if you'd like. However, as outlined above, if not a high-quality RS, TPR at least meets WP:SPS and is being merely used for ride POV videos. To my mind, linking to a notable channel's video of the ride itself would actually be better verification-wise than a news article describing the ride. Happy to replace though, if you do insist.

Really appreciate you taking the time, again. Please let me know your thoughts re the above. If you'd like to conduct some spot-checks and need help with access to any refs, please do let me know or shoot me a Wikimail. Thank you again! — CR4ZE (T • C) 09:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well the main thing I'm getting at here is consistency – I don't want you to think that I'm nitpicking based on my personal preferences :) Aza24 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the exception for news sources, I suppose I assumed otherwise because it seemed to be common practice to include them, but no issues there. However, I would think that web (but non-news) sources such as the Roll Coaster database would require them per "Access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date"
Once again here, I'm looking for consistency. The issue I see is having "subscription required" template but in other places the red lock, which means the same thing. I'm looking closer now and it looks like the "subscription required" is generated by the SMH template so (I think?) the only solution here is using the {{pay}} template for all as you suggested
The script is User:Headbomb/unreliable – a very well made tool. I'm looking closer at the information that the Theme Park refs actually cite (which I should have done before) and I would agree that in this case there doesn't seem to be an issue here.
Spotchecks are probably unnecessary since you have a couple of FAs under your belt, but would be happy to if you would insist, or the coords requested them. Do let me know - Aza24 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, and any insight based on your preferences would be welcomed as well. =D Yes, it's common practice to use them but I don't mind colouring outside the lines. Just to reiterate, I can't see that access dates serve a purpose that archiving cannot, even for sites that don't have publication dates (ie RCDB). The purpose behind it is to say when the information was verified to be true, but if we provide a permanent snapshot that will never rot, that's even better. I can put access parameters back on those non-dated sites if it's a contention. Though I wonder (going outside this FAC) if this is a good point for debate at WT:CS1, as I would argue that the documentation should be updated to the effect of: "accessdate are redundant if refs have been archived". Yes, I've got some FA's hanging on my wall, but I'm human and we can make mistakes. I recently reviewed a GA submission for this year's WikiCup winner and did have a couple of small gripes over some spotchecks. I'll leave the verdict as to whether any are needed here up to you and/or the coords. I've substituted the url-access parameters per your suggestion; it was misbehaving but I worked it out. Thanks again! — CR4ZE (T • C) 10:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I was pinged, my opinion on access-dates is that is when it was verified. Archives are often not quite the same as that of what was viewed, and could theoretically be destroyed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But if the text can be verified from the archived snapshot provided, how is that different? Anyway, that's a rhetorical. This wouldn't be the right forum for a debate over the minutiae. I've added access parameters to the non-dated refs per above. If I've missed any, please let me know. — CR4ZE (T • C) 11:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here, pass for source review. No promises but I will attempt to come back and leave some comments on the prose. Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No expectations here, just gratitude for your commentary on sources. Thanks again. — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Aza24, wanted to ask if you'd be able to take a run at the prose. Any further commentary would be greatly appreciated, especially as this is now in urgents and running out of time. (Good-faith offer of qpq if needed as well—always happy to repay debt for considered review. If more is needed here, I could take a look). Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you for pinging, my schedule has recently cleared up so I'd be glad to help out. Give me a day or two. The Leonardo is nearly there so don't worry about qpq (just waiting for one user to finish his comments, then I think Gog will promote it), unless of course, you stumble across something terribly wrong with it. :) Aza24 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24

I wanted to start my comments before I addressed yours that you so kindly brought to my FAC:
Oxenford, Queensland in the infobox but just Queensland in the text? Imo Oxenford, Queensland would make sense for both as Queensland by itself is a huge place. Oops now I'm coming back to see and seeing that it's actually Gold Coast in Queensland vs Oxenford, Queensland?
Seems weird to have both italics and quotes for the slogan (in the infobox), but I'm not sure what the standard is
I love the use of "annum" but I feel that its not worth the (likely) possibility of confusion for our readers – "year" may be a safer bet here. Alternatively, you could link to the wikitionary article on it, not sure how but there is a way to do it without an external link I believe
Would think that the action film link should be action film
Gosh this place sounds so cool
Whats with the redirect in Batman Adventure – The Ride?
Why is the Young Einstein Gravity Homestead... to the end of that paragraph before the Marvin the Martian in 3D opened in December 1997... several new rides. part? It is a little odd to mention the 3d movies that began in 1997, go back in time, and then go back to the 3D movies imo.
Got to the Park layout section couldn't find anything else before then. I'll get to the rest later today or maybe tomorrow. The prose reads beautifully... I'm not a huge fan of theme/amusement parks but this one is certainly sounding appealing Aza24 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would highly recommend a visit should you ever holiday on the Gold Coast. If you're not a big "thrill ride" person and/or have kids, Sea World and Dreamworld are fantastic as well.

Oxenford is a suburb of the Gold Coast. I assume per Template:Infobox amusement park we would specify suburb if using all three location parameters, although it's not clear. (Coincidentally, Movie World is cited as an example template on the page, with "Oxenford, Queensland, Australia" given.) The article used to have "Oxenford, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia", which I again assume was redundant. Not 100%, but I think it's good the way it is.
Good catch re italics/quotations (this has been left as is for years). I believe slogans should have quotations only.
I'll do you one better and change it to "yearly average": more concise.
The action film link was deliberate and per SEAOFBLUE I'd like to keep as is. Same for other examples like "Premier of Queensland". This was raised during GAN.
No idea why I used the redirect there...
Young Einstein was a walk-through attraction at the back of the park (replaced by Harry Potter, then Matrix, then bumper cars, and currently vacant). The Marvin the Martian film opened at the Roxy Theatre along Main Street, replacing Adventures in the Fourth Dimension. Different attractions.

Thank you for your insightful comments, please continue when you have an opportunity. — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to this now. I didn't really articulate my query on the "Young einstein and following sentences" clearly at all above lol, I was referring to the line The Roxy Theatre screened 3D films and then Marvin the Martian in 3D opened in December 1997 at the Roxy Theatre as the world's first animated 3D film" a paragraph later – it just seemed odd say "the first animated 3D film" when a paragraph earlier you say they "screened 3D films" – not a major issue though of course
You have some dup links still, this script may help find them quickly
DC Comics should be linked earlier ("Built on the former Boot Hill Graveyard, the DC Comics Super-Villains Unleashed") and not where it is at the moment (" DC Comics Super-Villains Unleashed and...")
It seems like the virtual reality is a new thing compared to the Arkham Asylum as a whole, "optionally in virtual reality" doesn't really make that clear unless you look at the source's date (which no one will); perhaps rephrase to something like "with a virtual reality option since 2017" or something
Not much to comment on, got to Attendance and performance, will get through the rest later today. Aza24 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for returning!

To your first point (and thank you for clearing this up), I'll check through the sourcing and see what I can do here. I'm pretty sure the first film that opened at the Roxy (Adventures in the Fourth Dimension) was either live-action or at the very least not animated. Marvin the Martian was the first 3D cartoon film, as noted in sources. I'll come back to this later today and see how/if I could clarify.
Installed the script (good idea!) and checked through. Was happy to address these but wanted to comment. The duplink for dark ride was piped with the text "ghost train". Readers may be unfamiliar with what a "ghost train" is, so it could be helpful? (The scope of the dark ride article covers a variety of attractions.) S&S – Sansei Technologies has gone through a few name changes: it was S&S Power when Batwing opened, and S&S Worldwide with Green Lantern. Similar with Arkham Asylum – Shock Therapy, which used to be Lethal Weapon – The Ride: it was an extensive retheme/rename hence the duplink. All three duplinks gone for now, but there may be a case for putting at least some of them back.
Good point about Arkham VR. I'd prefer to keep the park layout prose as tight as possible, so what I did instead was mention the VR addition in history first. Note that VR was added in September 2016, not the date of the source. Direct quote from the article (it requires library access): "Last September, we launched VR onto the Arkham Asylum Coaster at Warner Bros. Movie World and it has been really well received." Hopefully this is enough to solve the problem.

Look forward to your continued insight. — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick follow-up. I checked through the 1991 sources and none of them mention Adventures by name; searched ProQuest as well and found nothing. I'll do another dig later today and see if I can clear this up. Also to note, the prose on Arkham in park layout is on borrowed time anyway: Arkham's been SBNO for nearly a year, and just in the past few weeks they've been taking it down. Forum thread if you're curious. Still no formal announcement about its (long-overdue) closure yet, but when this happens it will be removed from the text anyway. — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if any dup links are on purpose, that's cool with me, I was just making sure you didn't have an extra unintentional ones. The other things you responded to seem fine. Aza24 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"was impacted by the September 11 attacks" – presumably this was a negative impact, but you may want to state that clearly for the reading then letting them assume
"over the respective financial year" may just be me but I had to look back and see what the "respective year" was – it may be better to have just "throughout the financial 2006" or something, not a huge deal though
"154 ha Oxenford" – what does the "ha" mean? If this is "hectare" I would say a safer bet is spelling it out (didn't even know that was the equivalent abbreviation myself...)
Read through the rest, that's all I have. The research is all there and my comments here (and earlier) are mostly nitpicks. Thank you for effort here. I will preemptively support as the issues here are about as minor as it gets. Happy to discuss anything further though of course. Aza24 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the support! I'm cool to just leave links as are. Yes, "ha" is the standard abbreviation for "hectare" but it was just as easy to remove this, as precinct size is already given in park layout. Good thing you noted the financial year thing, it was actually financial 2007 so I clarified the year and moved accordingly (spot-checked the other years, with no issues that I could see). I did check again to see if I could make the 3D film thing clearer, but the sources don't get into the specifics that I need to state that there were no 3D animated films at the Roxy prior to Marvin the Martian. It should be okay as is, but I'll come back tomorrow and see if it could be tweaked. Thanks again for the time given to this review, it is appreciated. Look forward to crossing paths again in the future! — CR4ZE (T • C) 11:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. I was a little worried that the slowness of reviews for this nomination would discourage your future activity, but it sounds like that isn't the case – which I'm glad to hear. Aza24 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This nomination is approaching four weeks old and has not yet attracted any supports. I have added it to Urgents, but it needs to attract several substantive reviews over the next week or so if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Just wondering if there's anything else I can do on my end. Is there another forum that I could ask at to attract interest in review? I've already tried the relevant WikiProjects to no avail. Would be a shame to see this archived because of minimal input (even opposing commentary would at least give me something to work on). — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest pinging anyone who has previously reviewed or commented on the article to see if you can get a review out of them. Plus calling in any Wiki-favours you can. And try a polite request on the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I already did the first thing a while ago (happy to try the other ideas later, too). Good news though, just today someone from APARKS has kindly gotten back to me and plans to leave some commentary within the next couple of days. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adog

Hello, I'm Adog. Participant from WP:APARKS, will be commenting through the coming days. Some things I can point out this time around...

The lead prose may be extended a bit to cover more of the entirety of the article's content. For instance how many total attractions (including roller coasters) does the park currently host, any milestones or achievements that are significant (GTA or Australian-related), or operating seasons.
Usually the denotation for RCDB is placed as a reference in the "publisher" category because of its extensive use as a database.
I feel as some of the notes could instead be placed in the prose as they aren't lengthy and do provide relevant information. These points include that of: h, j, w.

These, of course, are passing. More extensive to come in the latter. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to leave commentary, and all are fair points. Can definitely see a need for the lead to be expanded, so I've had a go (not 100% happy, may tweak later). Let me know what you think so far and if I need to go further. I substituted with |publisher= fields on not only RCDB refs, but also the first-party sources. Left note j as is for now, as I do think jumping forward in time would disrupt the flow of the main prose and that the November staff count is superfluous to the text anyway. Do let me know if you disagree. I look forward to more of your helpful feedback. — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Adog, is there a time-frame for when you can revisit? Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE: Yes, things ended up getting in my way. Most likely by December 3 and 4. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. As for the comprehensive side, going through the article several times I believe the contributor has made a great effort in responding to feedback and improving the prose significantly over the past months, and during this current FA review. The only thing I spotted was a MOS:DUPLINK for Boxing Day's second instance. I would be happy to endorse of support this article for the higher quality status. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adog, FYI, if you want to support a FAC candidate for promotion, the usual way to do it is to put "support" in bold somewhere in your comments. Many people put it at the left side of the text to make it easier for the coordinators to spot it. If you don't bold it the coordinators may assume you are not formally supporting the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I must've missed it! Mike, perhaps Adog was waiting for me to fix the duplink before a formal support? (If not, bolding as suggested would be good). Thanks for the feedback! — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie and CR4ZE: You'd be both correct in your assumptions. Wanted to see if someone would say something about bolding and for final corrections to be made on my end. Great job and hoping for the best on this article and for the contributor! Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! Just a note for the coords; Adog previously gave helpful input at the peer review as well. — CR4ZE (T • C) 16:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adog, and apologies if I am being a little slow, but are you feeling able to support or oppose this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Support most definitely. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

by July the newly cemented Warner Roadshow Studios had opened: I'm not sure what "cemented" means here, and this is the only mention of "Warner Roadshow Studios". I see from the link that they are apparently the same as Village Roadshow Studios, mentioned in the lead but that should be clearer to the reader.
~~Footnote [f] mentions three other Warner Bros. parks, but the lead only mentions two others, omitting the one in Germany.~~

-- Stopping there for the moment; I should be able to pick this up later today or possibly tomorrow. Looking good so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in! I'm happy with basically all of your changes so far, so I encourage you to continue as you were.

I changed "The studio was producing" back to "The studio was to produce", although we could tweak again. The source indicates that Total Recall production never went into full-swing and that De Laurentiis left while studio sets were still being built.
I see your reasoning. I changed it because it made it sound like no work had started, and I thought it was better not to imply that. We can leave this if you like but if you can come up with another way to phrase this that would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tweaked a couple of grammar changes in the first 2000–2008 paragraph. The abbreviated Harry Potter film names are written in title case, thus "the" should be lower-case.~~
I'd drop "the" altogether in that case. Either way I don't think it should be inside the link; if it's in the link it's implicitly part of the title so would have to be upper case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did move it outside the link. Rereading I am still finding this very jarring. When referring to any movie by its full or abbreviated name one doesn't say "the" before the movie title (I watched the Westworld today); but if it's inside the link, and italicized, it can only be part of the title and must be capitalized. The only two options that read naturally to me are "the release of Chamber of Secrets", or "the release of The Chamber of Secrets". The latter is certainly what many people would say in casual speech, but if it's unacceptable to use "The" unless the title is not abbreviated, dropping "the" altogether seems to be the only natural alternative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tried a couple different approaches here, even using each film's full title. I'm happy with full title-case (The Chamber of Secrets) so that's what I've gone with. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Newly cemented" simply means "newly opened"/"reopened" etc; the studio construction was finished and opened under a different name. If you think it's too colourful/colloquial, am happy to change.
To me "cement" is figuratively used for things joining together, not opening, so I think it would be good to change. In fact I think you could make it just "by July the new Warner Roadshow Studios (now Village Roadshow Studios) had opened", or even cut "the new" as well -- "opened" implies it's a beginning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Warner Roadshow Studios" was the former name and in previous revisions I had this noted in parentheses, which I simplified for concision's sake, but to clarify I've put them back in. The former name should be noted as that's what's written in the source. (Option B, if you like: I could roll this into a footnote?)
~~That's fine the way you have it; a footnote would be fine too if you prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Can see why you're raising the question but let me clarify as I action. Warner Bros. Movie World Germany was renamed Movie Park Germany in 2004, when it was acquired by a new owner and withdrew its Warner Bros. licensing. Madrid and Abu Dhabi (and of course, the Gold Coast) still hold branding licenses. I've included this now in the footnote. If you need me to tweak further and/or find a source that better covers this, please let me know.
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to more of your helpful insight and thanks again for your efforts! — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be able to post more this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~who performed more thrilling stunts than before: "thrilling" is a little too adulatory to be said in Wikipedia's voice.~~
~~and incorporated world-first animatronics and 3D projection technologies: this is a bit vague. What was "world-first" about these?~~
The image caption says Hollywood Stunt Driver was relaunched in 2014, but the body text says it was closed and replaced by a sequel. I can see how these might not be in conflict but the wording isn't ideal.
Its main attraction was Doomsday Destroyer, a Suspended Twin Hammer thrill ride: you often link to a ride type (e.g. Space Shot (ride)) to avoid an inline explanation to people like me who know nothing about these ride types. In this case, since there's no link to either the ride itself or the ride type, I think you need either a parenthetical explanation or a footnote.
~~remains the single largest ride investment: needs an "as of 2020" or whatever the source date is.~~
With Tower of Terror II's 2019 closure, DC Rivals remains Australia's tallest, fastest and longest coaster: "remains" isn't right, since it did not have that status before Tower of Terror II closed. Perhaps "Since the closure of Tower of Terror II in 2019, DC Rivals has been..." though that would really also need an "as of 2020" note. Or "When Tower of Terror II closed in 2019, DC Rivals became..." which would not need an "as of".
I see you've improved this, but I still think an "as of" is worth it. If another park builds a taller, faster, or longer coaster in 2021, this statement won't be true any more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be beating a dead horse, but I still don't see the point. If a new coaster gets built that is taller and faster, then this article can be updated when that happens, but the information is correct per the cited source at the time it was retrieved (and RCDB databases are known for their regular updates and accuracy). If the text is still verifiable with a current source, do we need to state in the prose that it is so? Anyway, knowing the Australian theme park industry the way I do, this is unlikely to happen any time soon (all major 2021 coasters in Australia are known now, none of them come close, and the industry isn't characterised by the race to be taller and faster that it used to be). — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to oppose over this, but I'll leave it unstruck in case others want to comment. See WP:ASOF for the reasoning, but the short version is that at some point -- perhaps next year, perhaps twenty years in the future -- the statement will be out of date, and it won't be apparent to anyone that that's the case. It's usual to use an as of or some equivalent phrasing to fix this. If it were up to me I think I'd make it "became", since that will continue to be true and wouldn't need an "as of". But it's a minor point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several times you use "the Gold Coast" rather than "Gold Coast" but our related articles don't do this. Just checking: are those articles wrong? Or are both usages colloquial? See Oxenford, Queensland, for example, which says "Oxenford is a suburb in the City of Gold Coast"; you have "Movie World is located in Oxenford on the Gold Coast".
I'll take your word for this, so striking; it does look like the incorrect usage is in more than one other article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Stunt Driver's crew perform daring motorcycle and rally car stunts daily.[95] Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster careens down corridors of eerie projections and booby traps before its elevator lift drops riders backwards into tight, unbanked turns. I'd cut or replace "daring", "careens", and probably "eerie"; they are more advertising than informative in tone.
See my reply to your note below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patrons cruise through Junior Driving School's miniature park replica[96] and embark the Road Runner Rollercoaster. I see you're trying to vary the language, but I don't think this works: patrons don't necessarily "cruise", which is again not quite the right tone; describing the layout doesn't require you to mention the patrons at all. And "embark" would need to be "embark on", but that problem also goes away if you avoid phrasing the description in terms of the customers. It's difficult to mention the customers in describing the rides without sounding like a brochure.
See my reply to your note below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem with Guests use RFID wristbands to help the villains destroy the area or hang upside-down on Doomsday Destroyer. Plus it's not clear what the RFID wristbands do; if you want to mention them I'd put them up in the "2011-present" section where the Super-Villains precinct is first described.
The rest of the paragraph needs similar attention: "plunges", "propels up" (propels needs a direct object, but shouldn't this be in the description of the ride, not here in the layout section?), "hurtles", "blasts", perhaps "catapults", and what does "courses" mean? Generally I think this section should just describe the layout but you're trying to make it do more.
See my reply to your note below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~as of August, White Christmas is scheduled to go ahead: Can the as of be updated, since we're now very close?~~
During its first operational year, Movie World received 1.2 million visitors: since it opened in the middle of 1991 it's not clear if this means the year ending in mid-1992 or the calendar year 1992. I would have thought the former, but later in the paragraph you cite an attendance figure for a calendar year. Similarly you mention the financial year without saying what this is in this case; a footnote would be enough.
I think just changing it to "year of operation" would do it; the slightly non-standard phrasing led me to think it was referring to some standardized period that didn't necessarily start on opening day. It's a minor point and if you don't want to make the change that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done! — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the comments attributed to Mark Germyn in the 1991-2008 section: I don't have access to that source, but it looks like a trade journal; that sort of source is unlikely to exercise strong editorial control over self-promoting comments from significant figures in the industry. I think that means we need to be careful about repeating positive claims. The quote is probably OK, because it's a quote and because there are supporting numbers. The "strong retail performance" looks less useful to me: we say "noted", which implies agreement in Wikipedia's voice, so I would change that if you do keep some version of this; but beyond that do we have any objective measure that this is "strong" retail performance? Without an objective comparison I don't think the sales figures are all that useful.
Reiterating a point: if you search for "noted" you'll find half-a-dozen uses. I would look at each one to be sure it's an objective statement of fact -- I think at least a couple should be substituted.
A 20% decline in attendance during 2000 was attributed to Y2K hysteria: I find this hard to believe. Once 2000 dawned with few problems, everyone promptly forgot about Y2K. Is the source neutral and definite about this? If it's the company themselves making excuses I'd be very sceptical.
I've changed a couple of instances of "visitation" to "visits" but there are more; it doesn't mean "visits" so the rest should be changed too, but you might want to vary it from just "visits". You use it so much that I am starting to wonder if perhaps the trade journals use it in this sense, but even if they do it's industry jargon which readers won't know.
Sorry, I wasn't being clear here. Am I right in thinking that sources you're using use "visitation" to mean the total number of visits by customers in a given period? The problem is that this is not a usage most people are familiar with; visitation has several meanings (here is a concise list of the ones I'm familiar with, plus a couple I wasn't); the usage in the article is not in the list. I don't think you can use "visitation" at all in the article unless we define the term, perhaps in a footnote, citing the trade sources. I don't think it's worth doing, and I'd suggest completely replacing it with "number of visits", "visits", "attendance", and so on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm with you now! The term "visitation" was my own wording; as stated above, I wanted to vary the language and I thought this would be an appropriate substitution. If the meaning of "visitation" is unclear, then I'll concede. All instances of "visitation" have been struck. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response, operations were staggered on several rides over a daily rotating basis. I had to read the footnote to understand this. How about: "In response, hours of operation for several rides were reduced", which is unambiguous. The footnote gives a specific example which is still useful.
If the Q150 pass was introduced in April 2009 and extended later that year, it's not a measure taken "during the financial crisis of 2007-2008". Of course the reverberations from the crisis were long-lasting, but a rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction would be good.
Looks like you skipped this one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did, my apologies. We didn't feel the full impact of the GFC until end of 2008 into 2009, and that's when the source is taken from (we were shielded a lot better than other countries). I've rephrased this and hopefully it's clearer. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "promotional efforts contributed to increased profitability and attendance over the 2010 financial half-year" (which half-year? First or last? And we don't know what the financial year is) then there was no "hardship", mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph.
The link to the financial year section on Australia addresses part of the issue; can we make it "over the first half of the 2010 financial half-year", or, better "over the second half of 2009"? After all, does the reader care that the analysis of that calendar period was done in the context of a financial year? It's a lot easier to parse the second way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They probably don't, no. I've rephrased similar to your suggestion (just said "over the following year" because, again, readers probably won't care enough about specificity), although if you spot any other instances where simplification is needed, do let me know. I spot-checked references to "financial" year through this section and can't see any other issues with clarity. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~the scale and grandeur of American muses Disneyland and Universal Studios: I think "muses" here is a bit too figurative; just "inspirations" would do.~~

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike Christie, just a quick note to say thanks for leaving such extensive commentary here. I look forward to working through this however I am a little tied up this week. I will get to this as soon as I can, hopefully within the next couple of days—do you want me to ping again or are you watching? Thanks again! — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching, so no need to ping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience and I'll come back again tomorrow to spot-check all of my changes against your comments. Responses below (I usually don't reply inline, although of course you may if you like):

Checked on Total Recall carefully again. I can see the rationale for your suggestion, but the wording I had was actually closer to what the source says. It's worded that production was due to start when the studio sets finished construction, but this never happened, and De Laurentiis left in December 1987. There's no date given for when Total Recall production was announced or due to start, so we can't claim that this was also in 1987.
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "thrilling stunts" to "complex stunts": I think this is better tonally, but let me know if you disagree. Tweaked image caption as well.
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note on what Doomsday Destroyer is. Believe I had Suspended Twin Hammer redlinked at one stage as it could be notable; if I get around to it one day and if meets N, this could be a solution for the future.
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see the need to state an "as of" for DC Rivals as this is still true and a verifiable claim. Seems redundant to "clarify" when because it's cited as fact from the date given but if you prefer, we could go for something like "at its time"?
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rolled ToT II into a note and cleaned up this statement.
See reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Gold Coast" is correct; if articles are saying otherwise, they are doing so colloquially or in error. The "City of Gold Coast" is the local government area but the Gold Coast is the official name of the city—unless the sentence is structured differently, it's always preceded by "the". Also note, we say "on the Gold Coast" not "in the Gold Coast" (this is not just colloquial consensus among Aussies, it's actually what RS say as well).
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to note re your copy-edit, there are other properties at the Oxenford precinct, including a TopGolf facility and the film studio. The source only lists those mentioned, but if you want me to modify this at all, then I can. I'm fine with it as is, just a query.)
No problem either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for White Christmas updates from RS and there are none usable after August yet, but someone (ie Gold Coast Bulletin) will likely have an update on the event soon (the event actually starts tomorrow, 4 December). We'll have to leave as is for now, but indeed, floats for the Christmas parade are already on-site and everything else is ready to go.
Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I've got another source available for the first-year 1.2 million figure, which was published in September 1992 (three months earlier than the current source). Naturally, we have to assume this refers to the first 12 months of operation (ie 3 June 1991–3 June 1992), not to the end of 1992. I can't rephrase without straying into OR, but I can't see that readers would be unclear/questioning this.
See reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for differences between financial/calendar, the distinction between the two does need to be made, and switching between the two was tricky to navigate. Australia's financial year runs from 1 July to 30 June. Also (responding to your comment further down), the financial half-year refers to 1 July–31 December: financial results published at the end of the "second half" of the year are given as end-of-year. I've piped the "financial year" link further to the "Australia" section. I know this explanation may seem convoluted, but I think the link here should be enough to clear up ambiguity. I could find some RS to cover a footnote explaining what our FY is, but the link would serve the same purpose.
See reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed "strong performance", which should solve the concern. Reduced use of "noted" throughout.
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might sound like a reach, but it does seem Y2K had an impact. How significant this really was is difficult to measure without straying into OR. The park was already on a high during 1999 with Wild West Falls. Peak trading season for Movie World is the Christmas–New Year period (this is also our long summer holiday) and people weren't on the roads then in 1999 like they were in previous years. Obviously, things quickly turned to normal when everyone realised the world wasn't ending, but tourism was down over that period. You're welcome to check the source and judge for yourself; feel free to Wikimail me and I'll help with access. Am happy to massage the prose here but having checked the source, I think it's ok as is.
The point about traffic on the roads being down makes a good deal of sense. I'm happy to take your word for the source supporting your phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to vary the language by switching between "visitation" and "attendance", although the latter is actually used more frequently. I looked at recasting some of the statements here but I couldn't see a way to to this without losing clarity. Would "numbers" be a substitute?
See reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything not mentioned has also been actioned and I've saved my response to your comments on park layout for last, as this is where we'll differ the most:

I appreciate where your commentary is coming from and I'm not hardline against a change. I've actioned where clarification was needed but unfortunately I will have to differ elsewhere. Informative language can also be colourful, and I think I've struck the balance here. If your feelings are strong enough, perhaps we could get a third opinion? Some of the other reviewers could weigh in (Aza24 has recently !supported on prose and perhaps could share some insight). The prose here has been revised multiple times. Here's what I had at GAN: it's serviceable, if monotonous. I opted to cut this down with economy of words, and contextualising the guest experience was the most concise way to do this. To me, a slightly in-universe descriptor of the guest experience is suitable and engaging. A bit of colour to the language ("plunges", "catapults" etc) reads better than simply "this ride does that", and I don't think there's anything overly hyperbolic or adulatory here. Merriam-Webster allows "courses" as a transitive verb, and "blasts" is literal (could be subbed with "shoots"?).

Eager for more discourse and very grateful for the thorough commentary so far. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the language is hyperbolic, but it's not in the register I aim for in encyclopedic writing. I agree other opinions would be helpful. I'll post a note at WT:FAC after I've finished responding here, just pointing at the specific paragraphs I baulked at, and we'll see what others think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to go through and strike my comments where you've addressed them; this is just a note to say that I would be fine with you interspersing your comments with my notes -- in fact it would make it a bit easier to respond, since at the moment I'm having to scan up and down to assemble the conversations on each point and see what's been addressed and what hasn't. If you'd prefer not to, that's OK too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I generally avoid inlines as they can make the discussion convoluted and hard to track who said what. Given there's only the two of us commenting here, I'll respond inline from now on. I usually have two windows open when I'm commenting. =) — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would certainly help me. You're within your rights not to do inline responses, but I have to say they're almost universal at FAC and it's a bit of a disincentive (for me, at least) to review if I see a nominator doesn't reply inline. So thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, re: your request elsewhere, I've only glanced at this, but I like the writing, so long as it's the editor's own words, e.g. "Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster careens down corridors of eerie projections and booby traps before its elevator lift drops riders backwards into tight, unbanked turns." Assuming it is, I think it works well. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping CR4ZE, I had indeed noticed the "colorful" language used when I read through earlier. Imo this adds to the readability and I don't see it as un-encyclopedic. I think normally I would be against such a style, but I could tell that careful consideration was used as to make it engaging but not like a promotional pamphlet. Aza24 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Mike. I think I've responded (inline this time!) to everything—obviously we're in disagreement over the park layout prose but I'm happy to wait for more input from others if you want to see more consensus, or not. Look forward to more of your helpful insight and hope you're getting closer to forming a view on this one. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything above is either struck or minor. I think your language changes are fine too; I was interested to see the comments about "careen" being unfamiliar in this usage; checking revealed that it's listed as "North American" in the non-sailing-ship sense, which is a good enough reason to find a substitute in an article that's in Australian English. I'm mid-Atlantic myself so am often unable to tell whether something is US or UK usage or both. The only remaining word I'm not keen on is "courses", which I think is a pretty obscure usage, though I have seen it before. It was obscure enough to make me wonder if it was from a half-completed edit. However, everyone's active vocabulary differs, and I don't like it when someone tells me to remove something from an article because they aren't familiar with it, so it's not a sticking point.

I expect to support, but want to do one more read-through first -- tonight if I get time, otherwise tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through again and I see just one minor wording issue: you have "paid host"; is this a typo for "played host"? If not I don't know what is intended. Other than that it looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's embarassing—I've misused this expression without realising. Wish I could blame this on Australian English. ;) — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right on "courses": I checked Merriam-Webster and Cambridge, and it works as a verb but not particularly well in this context. I like "traverses" better (checked it was suitable), especially as the ride travels right through the middle of the scenes described. Although I'll differ on the need for "as of", I don't have strong enough feelings, so I've happily followed your guidance here. Please know there is no rush to get a verdict either way: I'm keen to hear more suggestions, but I think we should be on the same page with everything listed above now. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize on "paid host"; I've made similar unwelcome discoveries about my own usage over the years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think the article is in very good shape now; thanks for making those last fixes. CR4ZE, please consider reviewing some more articles; I see it's been a while since you reviewed much, and we always need people who can engage with prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, although I have done two in the past couple months. I enjoy reviewing but, other than checking here, I won't be around much until January—I note you've got one up currently so I'll do my best to have a look before then. I must say you've gone above and beyond the call of duty here with both the insightful commentary and careful copy-editing. I can't thank you enough, and know that your efforts are greatly appreciated. See you round! — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CR4ZE: A note on one source: the "Flashback Feature" source appears to be subscription required, so the citation should reflect that, and the archive.org link should be removed as it doesn't work, presumably for that reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! It was public access when I archived but it's since been moved behind a paywall. Shame, it was a fascinating article with lots of pics from opening day. (I still have access if you need it for anything.) — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.