Talk:Sky Zone

Notability?
Secondary source coverage does not seem very extensive or in depth and some might call it trivial as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability seems weak at best. I think it needs some more depth in establishing notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request
I work with Sky Park and would like to make a major edit request. The revision will address the lack of balance with the info, the undue weight placed on foreign operations, and update the history. I will list the changes below in no particular order:

KeepIt10026 (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) There should be 150 locations listed instead of 100 in the infobox, as of November 2021. ✅
 * 2) There are other park features besides trampolines.In December 2017, the company opened a park in Cecil Township, Pennsylvania that included the company's first American Ninja Warrior-style obstacle course. ✅
 * 3) Updated revenue and # of visitors for the history.In 2019, the company reported 30 million annual visitors, and $380 million in revenue. ✅
 * 4) The suspension of Ultimate Dodgeball is sourced to a Facebook post. Can we remove it? ✅
 * 5) Instead of the Injuries and lawsuits category, per WP:UNDUE and since one item is not an injury or lawsuit, can we change the section title to the broader category "Park safety? ✅
 * 6) The injuries and lawsuits are properly sourced, but paint a biased picture of the risk of trampoline parks.  Can we WP:BALANCE it out by including the following info, which suggests the number of park injuries has increases due to the increased number of parks, and includes info about what the company is doing to promote safety?A 2019 study of trampoline injuries presented by the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested a correlation between the increased popularity of trampoline parks and the increase of out of home trampoline injuries. Also, To warn customers of injuries and discourage risky behavior, the company requires customers to watch a safety video, and sign waivers acknowledging the inherent danger of trampolining.  The company also trains its employees to separate customers by size, but investigative reports suggest that those guidelines are not always followed. ✅
 * 7) The company now has a trampoline park on a cruise ship.In November 2019, the company announced a partnership with Carnival Cruise Lines, to put a Sky Zone trampoline park on the Carnival Panorama cruise ship. ✅
 * 8) The dedicated foreign operations sections place an unnatural weight on the company's Australian and Indian operations. While these are certainly significant, the majority of the parks are outside those countries, yet readers wouldn't get that impression from the current article.  Can we merge that info into the history with a summary in a new "Operations" section? Sky Zone is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. As of February 2018, the company was operating franchises in USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia, the United Kingdom, Norway, Guatemala, Kuwait and India. It is a subsidiary of park operator CircusTrix.  ✅
 * 9) Can we include this info giving the scope of the franchise operations? In 2016, trade publication Franchise Times ranked Sky Zone as #2 on the list of fastest growing franchises. ✅
 * 10) Some additional info for the history section. In November 2018, the company was featured in an episode of CBS's Undercover Boss. ✅
 * Lots to unpack here, but I'll take a look. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  16:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I reviewed your request and made the changes. I also added some additional info and standardized the ref formats for consistency. This was a substantial amount of editing.  Ping me here if I got anything wrong or missed anything. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  02:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi – Thanks for your help with this edit request.  It looks like another editor undid some of the changes. The article seems less balanced now.  Can you take a look? Thanks. KeepIt10026 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi - I recently responded to the above connected edit request. After reviewing the sources and the article, I agreed that the requests were reasonable, to satisfy our WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE quidelines.  After I completed the request, it looks like you undid some of my changes, and added new information, in ways that make the article unbalanced again. We strive for neutrality here, and don't want to let personal feelings interfere with our editing.  When I see the introduction of original unsourced research, as you did here, or modifying the text to remove important context, as you did here, it starts to look like you might have a conflict of interest. The article also doesn't work structurally as a result of your edits. Info about efforts to improve park safety doesn't fit thematically in an injuries and lawsuits section. I also noticed an earlier emphasis in ALL CAPS here to highlight a phrase from a safety manual, which appears to be implying the company is being deceitful. This also broaches WP:OR and WP:POV. Due to the nature of your edits, I have to ask you if you have a connection with the company, such as being a former employee, or even if you work for a competitor. If you have a connection, you are required to disclose it on your talk page. You are not forbidden from editing the article, but since editors with a conflict of interest may not be able to prevent subconscious bias from creeping into their work, they are strongly advised to make edit requests on the talk page, to get consensus. If you disagree with my assessment of your editing, and feel you can defend your edits, now's your chance. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving me a chance to defend my edits rather than reverting them. I don't have a conflict of interest and have no connection with SkyZone other than knowing a friend whose parent permanently damaged their spine while at the park and was unable to get compensation from the company for it. I'm also striving for neutrality, and believe that some of the changes you made, in conjunction with edits requested by the company itself, obscure that neutrality. For example, "park safety" appears very euphemistic as a title for a section that goes into depth about lack of safety at the parks. Almost all news coverage about SkyZone are either copied from press releases or they're reporting on injuries at SkyZone parks. The rest seem to be just business updates, which are currently better represented on the page than injuries and lawsuits. As the page stands now with my edits, I believe it depicts the company as it is depicted by the full conglomeration of reputable sources outside Wikipedia. I'm hopeful we can come to a compromise here! For example, with the original research example you brought up, perhaps rather than crediting SkyZone as the first trampoline park, it may be possible to say "some sources claim that SkyZone is the first trampoline park, while others mention ____" Likeanechointheforest (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I'm sorry about your friend's parent. I can see why that might make you angry about the company.  However, there's a policy called WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that discusses this exact situation. We can only use reliable sources and quote them accurately, doing everything we can to avoid the appearance of a hidden conflict of interest, such as the one you disclosed. For example, there's a source that says they were the first trampoline park, an assertion you are challenging. As someone with no knowledge of trampoline parks besides what's presented here, there's no reason for me to second guess that.  The burden is on anyone who disagrees with that reliable published source to find another source supporting their position, and contradicting the other source.  Then we could "both sides" it in the article, as you suggest. I too questioned the claim, and when I tried to vet the edit request, I spent a half hour looking up the history of trampoline parks to see if anyone else is credited with opening the first one, and couldn't find anything.  Do you have a source that you are basing this assertion on? Also, the claims made in the research paper identified by the connected editor suggest the increase in injuries is due to the increase in popularity of these parks. Directly from the paper Trampoline injuries have long been a substantial contributor to broken bones in children, and this study suggests the popularity of new trampoline parks may be contributing to the increased incidence of trampoline fractures. This doesn't in any way absolve the parks if they skimp on safety, but it suggests that as with any physical activity, including even cycling, skiing and skateboarding, the more people do it, the more accidents there are. We have to do what we can to paraphrase the sources to not lose the original meaning. My addition was A 2019 study of trampoline injuries presented by the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested a correlation between the increased popularity of trampoline parks and the increase of out of home trampoline injuries. and you edited it to say A 2019 study of trampoline injuries presented by the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested an increase in injuries at trampoline parks. That missing context from the paper is important. I'm going to give this a few days and hopefully others watching this page can chime in as well, but at the very least, with the two examples I pointed out above there will need to be some more work done to restore the article's neutrality. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)