Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts[edit]

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...it summarizes all of the rail transport installations currently and previously located in properties run or licensed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (the largest theme park chain in the world by annual attendance) and every data item on the list is referenced. Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources look good, but I'm not a featured-nominations expert so someone would be better looking these over. However, I have two main issues:
Do you really need the lead image to be such a wide panoramic view? It might be better at the bottom of a section, like the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts#Walt Disney World section. You should add a lead image that doesn't need to be as wide. Like File:WDW MonorailRed ApproachingStation.jpg (not recommended) or File:Monorail Coral.jpg (slightly more recommended)
Also, the routemaps in the bottom of each section take up a whole lot of server space. It's fine to include routemaps—see Select Bus Service for an example of routemap implementation. But there are about 20 of them in this article. Putting the maps in the bottom of the section is better than putting them in the individual tables, but it's just that there are a lot of maps which, with the exception of {{Disneyland Resort Line}}, are located in the respective articles as well. (Also, {{Disneyland Resort Line}} and {{Disneyland Resort Line RDT}} look similar. I did see the TFD nomination, but I think it would be best to have one template that you can toggle based on the parameter.)
Overall though, everything else looks fine to me so far. Again, I'll have to take a look. epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I'm fine with changing the lead image if you think that's going to be a deal breaker. In a perfect world, I would choose an image that has more than one Disney rail line in the same shot (the Disneyland Railroad and the Disneyland Monorail System criss-cross each other near Tomorrowland Station and from there you can take a picture of both at once, for example), but since no such image is available on the Wikimedia Commons, I'll just change it to another WDW Monorail image for now. As far as the route maps go, there are sixteen total and according to my edit from last year when I added them all at once, they each take up ~55 bytes of memory in the article (i.e.: not that much). The main reason why I included them in the article is so you can compare and contrast them all side-by-side without having to click back-and-forth between the individual articles. I also went out of my way to make all of the route diagrams uniform in size and style (I am the original author for all of them except for the WDW Monorail and the Disneyland Resort Line) specifically so that they would display nicely in this article. Notice for instance how all of them are exactly twelve pictograms high (that's not an accident). Jackdude101 (Talk) 5:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jackdude101: Sounds good. The BS-maps can be easily modified to have one more blank line (just add a back-slash \ on its own line). Also, you can use {{Multiple image}} to add multiple images in the lead if you want to have both the monorail and railroad in the lead.
In regards to "server space," I'm not talking about how many bytes are in the string {{XYZ routemap}} if you actually add it to a page; I'm talking about the post-expand include size after all the templates are loaded. For example, the string {{Disneyland Monorail System}} is 30 bytes, but it may actually use up more CPU. Wikipedia has a restriction that when there are too many templates transcluded on a certain page, it will display a certain number of templates as normal until the limit is reached, then the remaining templates are displayed like wikilinks, like Template:Disneyland Monorail System instead of the actual template. That's what I'm concerned about—the fact that the routemaps may actually go over the template limit. This is not a major issue, but just something to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually discovered the route map template limit the hard way when I first added them. Originally, all of the Disney route diagrams were written using the old {{BS-map}} template and when all of them were included in the article, not all of them would display. So, I converted them all to the new {{Routemap}} template and now all of them display together correctly. The {{Routemap}} template appears to have resolved several of the techincal problems that the old {{BS-map}} template had. Jackdude101 (Talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackdude101 this nomination has been stalled for six weeks now, have you pinged a few people/projects to see if anyone would be prepared to review the list? If nothing forthcoming soon, we'll need to archive the nomination as unsuccessful at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I messaged several people and task forces just now. My apologies. I am not very familiar with the nomination process for featured list status and thought that it would be similar to the good article status process, where you simply have to wait a few months for someone to come by and review it. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be like that, but we tend allow nominations to persist for a few weeks without comments before archiving them for lack of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my comments above, I support the Featured List distinction. I'm the only !voter here, so not sure if this means much. epicgenius (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The lead is far too short and doesn't cover the major aspects of the article.  Done
    • I added an additional paragraph to the article's lead section. Let me know if that is sufficient or if you would like to see more. I am a big proponent of the "less is more" philosophy, personally. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you searched Flickr for images to fill the gaps? The Jolley Trolley (maybe not the right one mind you) seems to have a few hits with appropriate Creative Commons licensing for use on Wikipedia, the others may well do too since they were such big tourist attractions.  Not done
    • All of the railroad lines without a picture in the article have one thing in common: they are no longer operating. I looked on Flikr anyway to see if I could find anything and I did find some for the two Jolley Trolleys; however, the copyright claims for the handful of images for the Viewliner Train of Tomorrow and the Mine Train Through Nature's Wonderland are questionable, and there were no public domain-friendly images at all for the Fort Wilderness Railroad. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also is bloated, and even includes articles which don't exist, trim down and remove unlinked see also's.  Done

Otherwise it's a nice piece of work. The lead is the key for me, a couple of sentences on each of the parks would probably suffice, a couple of beefy paras and that Disney quote would work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: I made significant changes to the lead section since we last spoke (I changed the marking on the lead section issue above from partly done to done). When you have a moment, please review and indicate whether you support or oppose FL status for this article. Jackdude101 (Talk) 13:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's much better now, but as I'm an FLC delegate and as there looks to be sufficient interest here, I'll recuse from voting right now so that I'm in a better position to close the nomination as appropriate in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*On the subject of the intro, if you want to use that quotation from Walt Disney himself to provide some conext, then that's fine, but I would suggest using the format employed in, say, Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record or NME's Cool List and put it in a quote box under the lead image. In its current position, the quote breaks the flow of the lead and introduces some awkward whitespace.  Done
  • "The following is a complete listing of..." – this entire sentence can be deleted. We shouldn't need to say that a list is complete; it's what our readers will be expecting anyway.  Done
  • The notes in the right-most column that are single, incomplete sentences don't need terminating periods (i.e. these would be the sentences that begin "Based on the anthropomorphic...", "Replaced by the...", "Used purely as...", "Designed to recreate...", "Served by commuter trains...", "Originally named..." and "Served by Line 11...").  Done
  • How are the railways sorted? It almost looks as if it's by opening date, but if that's the case then both Disneyland Monorail System and Disney Resort Line should be lower down their respective tables.  Done
    • The rail lines serving the general resort areas (the ones guests are most likely to see first and the ones that are ridden most often) are listed first, followed by those located inside individual parks listed by opening date. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned above that you'd found some free images for the two Jolly Trolley lines. Could they be included?  Not done
    • I attempted to upload some images of the two Jolly Trolleys from Flikr a few minutes ago, but it turns out the licenses they have are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. No other suitable images for these that also have compatible licenses appear to be available. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image for Gare de Marne-la-Vallée is a little unfortunate – it's just a bare train track, and the composition of the photo almost makes it look like the escalators are the main focus. It's also one of the only photos not to include examples of the vehicles that ride the railway it illustrates. Could this image be used instead? It's not much better, admittedly, but does at least illustrate what the trains look like.  Done
  • The See also section is also creating quite a lot of whitespace. The neatest way that I can see to remedy this would be to add {{Div col|2}} after "Other similar railroads:" and {{Div col end}} before "Private railroads utilizing equipment that previously ran on Disney property:".  Done
  • The portal bar seems quite overfilled. I can't imagine that anyone will want to learn more about, say, aquariums or Los Angeles as a result of reading this article, as they're not mentioned at any point. I'd recommend reducing the links in the portal bar down to just Disney, amusement parks, trains, and trams.  Done

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: All of your comments have been addressed. Please let me know whether my changes to the article are sufficient when you have a moment. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:DTT, the tables need row scopes and column scopes. Let me know if you'd like me to talk you through how to add these.  Done
    • You're pretty much there, you just have to replace the uses of Class=wikitable with Class="wikitable plainrowheaders" (not for the route diagrams tables, of course). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Per WP:OVERLINK, countries (e.g. United States) need not be linked to.  Done

Oppose (for now) Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but unfortunately I feel that it is not quite at FL quality.

  • My biggest issue is the lead, which is quite brief. Considering that at least three books have been written on this very subject, surely there must be more that you can say? Are there any interesting facts that you can give about the trains? Which was the first railway to be opened? Who builds them? Which ones are free and which require fares? That fact about how Disney's monorail system was the first of its kind in the US is definitely worthy of being mentioned in the lead. When was the monorail given Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark status? Have any of the other Disney railways been given this status? Which railways get the most passengers each year? Are the railways based on Disney characters generally more popular than their counterparts? Which tracks are the longest or shortest? I'm not saying that you have to include any or all of this material, but I do think that it's close to the sort of information that could be included in the intro to make the article more comprehensive.  Done
    • Length-wise, that's certainly an improvement, but I'm now concerned that the lead doesn't have the professional standards of writing that we'd expect from a featured list. Almost all of the prose that has been added is simply "Some railways have [certain quality], such as [railway x] in [theme park x], [railway y] in [theme park y] and [railway z] in [theme park z]." It just doesn't make for an engaging lead. If you vary the prose a bit, the article will be more enjoyable to read. For example, you could have something like this:

The Disney Corporation owns six resorts across five countries, all of which utilize railroad transportation within their grounds. The first such railroads were built in Disneyland Resort, the first Disney theme park. They were opened on July 17, 1955, by Billy Q. Importantman, who remarked at the time: "These railways are for the ages!" Three railroads were opened: the steam-powered Disneyland Railroad, the gas-powered Casey Jr. Circus Train and the working animals of Main Street, USA. Following the expansion of Disneyland in [year], a monorail was built by [engineering company] to connect the theme park to the general resort area. Opened in June 1959, it was the first operational monorail system in the United States, and was subsequently named an Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark by [organization] in [year]. Disney's second theme park, Walt Disney World, opened 16 years later, in 1971. For their new resort, Disney commissioned Baldwin Locomotive Works to build the railways in Walt Disney World, at a cost of $X million. Like Disneyland, Walt Disney World opened with three railways that included steam-powered locomotives and working animals. Two further lines were subsequently opened in the park: the Fort Wilderness Railroad in 1974 and the Wildlife Express Train in 1998. The Fort Wilderness Railroad was plagued with poor designs and operational problems, and was closed after six years. Speaking about the train in 1981, Gary K. Engineer remarked: "Our mistake was letting my six-year-old son design it."

This obviously isn't how you MUST write the lead, I just want to give you an example of the sort of prose that might be closer to FL quality. This article might benefit from a thorough peer review. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: I put pen to paper to perfect the prose. The lead was condensed in the process. Let me know whether you believe this is an improvement. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jack, but I'm still not entirely convinced by the prose. It has definitely improved (the information about passenger usage and how Disney has one of the largest private collections of operational steam locomotives is certainly interesting), but it's still not quite, in my view, at FL level just yet. Take the final sentence of the first paragraph: it's incredibly long (74 words), and the only real information it imparts is that rail transport can be found in all six Disney theme parks, which is something that we learn from the opening sentence anyway. Try this: wherever you are right now, read that sentence out loud. I don't know about you, but I get a bit bored round about the word "France". Additionally, ending a sentence with five inline citations makes the text look cluttered.
The second half of the lead is almost entirely unreferenced and has no wikilinks. The first sentence of the second paragraph is also really long (65 words). Phrases such as "in fact" risk violating WP:EDITORIALIZING. "Eclectic medley" sounds like a quote, but it's not one that I can see in the reference. If it is a quote then that would be fine, but otherwise it skates close to original research. I'm fine with absolutely everything else in the article; it's just the lead that I feel needs a thorough copy-edit. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: I addressed all of the specific fixes you requested. Everything in the lead section is now referenced and the longer sentences have been shortened. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was invited to participate in this discussion yesterday. On my first glance, I like what I see, but I have not yet read through the prose in the article. I hope to take a closer look tonight. Slambo (Speak) 11:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the nomination, especially because this is not a blunt list in a table but an interesting article with photographs and maps, which is very concise. To improve it further, I put forward two comments: The statement "the most-visited theme park on Earth" in the first caption of a figure could be seen by critics as a bit promotional. It does not add anything to the subject discussed unless it implies that the theme parks have such large car parks that the visitors need to be transported by railways. In the first line of the paragraphs on Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World I would add their locations such as In Anaheim, California. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the nomination, The map templates help make the list more eye-catching to the viewer. Cards84664 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it stalled out for a while there, but all done now. The latest support is a little lacking as there's no indication that a real review was done, but I've read through it myself anyways and I'm good with it. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Rail_transport_in_Walt_Disney_Parks_and_Resorts/archive1&oldid=1138488649"