Talk:The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Universal Orlando Resort)/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

I will be reassessing the good article status of this article in response to a request placed on the talk page. I aim to provide suggestions for improving the article in the table below, and then make a decision as to whether it meets the GA criteria: if it does it will remain listed as a GA, if not it will be delisted. All contributions to the discussion below are welcome, including views of other reviewers. If the outcome is disputed, community reassessment is available. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Three GA review related questions not yet addressed
 * 6a - Just in regards with 6a, I have fixed the rationale for File:Hogsmeadeattraction.jpg. Themeparkgc   Talk  22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fix is still a fail. For one thing the image is not low resolution, so anyone could copy it and abuse the copyright that exists. For another you need to make a case in the fair use rationale as to why this image contributes significantly to readers understanding of this article. Geometry guy 23:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed it from the article. As it is a non-free image a bot will soon pick up on it and nominate it for deletion. Themeparkgc   Talk  23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fixes. Every such edit improves the encyclopedia; hopefully you will also learn what our standards are and how to reach them. Geometry guy 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The most notable ride should probably have an image." - an image of the ride's facade is the main image in the infobox. As the ride is an indoor dark ride, a photo of the ride would probably break in-park rules (loose objects on rides), and would probably be blurry and of a low quality. Themeparkgc   Talk  00:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1a - I have tried to fix up everything in 1a and some more instances. Difference. Themeparkgc   Talk  00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2a - Just to bring something back from the original GA review. These comments were made by Propaniac (talk) on 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC). I know it doesn't justify all of the sources but it does for a few.
 * On the subject of Jim Hill, I've been doing some searches and he seems to me to be a noted longtime Disney expert who gets quoted as such fairly frequently in the media. This Google News Archive search seems like perhaps the best defense of his qualifications; you can see he's been quoted by NPR, the San Diego Union Tribune, the Associated Press, and others. (He also got some coverage in 2005 when he was ejected from one of the Disney parks for giving unauthorized tours, but I don't think that reflects poorly on his reliability.) I haven't come across anyone claiming he's a crackpot or anything like that.
 * In regard to HPANA, I'm not sure how well that site meets the RS guidelines (it does have its own Wikipedia article, FWIW), but it's not being called upon to do a great deal here. The two HPANA sources are used in concert with two others for that sentence; one of the other sources is a newspaper article that seems to effectively confirm the whole sentence, but since most of the story's behind a paywall, I included the HPANA page that linked to the story and quoted the most relevant portion. Similarly, the other cited HPANA page quotes from another source which is no longer available. And then you have the Jim Hill citation that effectively confirms everything again, assuming Hill's writing is reliable. Really, you could lose both HPANA sources entirely and I think the sentence would still be acceptably cited, but I included them to offer additional information to any interested reader.
 * Regarding Jim Hill, this comment only implies that it is appropriate to cite quotations of Jim Hill in reliable sources. He is surely not a crackpot, but his website has no independent editorial oversight, and is therefore not a reliable secondary source for nontrivial information.
 * Regarding HPANA, this raises a good point that the reliability of the source should be assessed against the nature of the material being sourced. Unfortunately the material being discussed here is the speculative (and partially unsourced) first paragraph of the background. Such material needs much better sources than Jim Hill and HPANA. Otherwise it is unencyclopedic and should be cut.
 * Regarding About.com: this site is owned by The New York Times. If it has presented credible evidence (as stated in the article), the New York Times would have published it. If the evidence is less than credible, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the Previous Potter attraction attempts section is purely unconfirmed rumours based off what Wikipedia deems unreliable sources, would you suggest removing it? Also in the following section Rumours and Official Announcement would you recommend pruning it to say something along the lines of "In January 2007, unconfirmed reports surfaced about the possibility of a Harry Potter themed zone in Universal's Islands of Adventure theme park. Five months later on May 31, 2007..." Themeparkgc   Talk  02:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a reviewer, I do not want to tell you what you have to do to write the best possible article, but I will gladly give my advice and views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source, compendium, directory or compilation of links to such information. Wikipedia articles should not say anything that isn't said elsewhere: our articles should not generate news. With articles on current topics it can be helpful to try to imagine looking back on the event in five or ten years time. Which information is truly encyclopedic, and which is recentism (the current buzz)?
 * Unconfirmed rumours in unreliable sources have no place in an encyclopedia, unless they are notable per reliable sources. That does not mean that these sections have to go or be pruned, but the material we use must be attributable to reliable sources. The GA criteria encourage the removal of poorly sourced information, because the criterion for inclusion of material, namely "broadness", is fairly weak, whereas the criteria for verifiability are quite strong.
 * I hope that helps. Geometry guy 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have decided to merge the two sections into one so that there is less reliance on those unreliable sources in question. What do you think now? Themeparkgc   Talk  23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is better, certainly, but you should now be able to drop less reliable sources and still have an encyclopedic treatment. I have looked over the article again, but the prose is still poor in places. Please ensure that sentences have a subject and a verb and that these go together. For example, inanimate objects cannot "begin" something: people, animate objects and processes can. Please also keep the writing simple: attempts to add variety to language often result in confusing prose. Here is one example: "A re-creation of the Hogwarts Express lies at the entry to Hogsmeade." This could mean that an item on Hogsmeade contains a lie by the Hogwarts Express! Apart from the fact that "entry" should be "entrance", "lies" contains an unnecessary ambiguity. If you can't fix the sentence by changing the words, consider changing the subject: for example "The entrance to Hogsmeade" could be the subject of the sentence.
 * I will look over the article again more thoroughly in the next few days and add more detailed comments if appropriate. I may also close the reassessment as "delist" if I believe that further progress will take more time than is reasonable in the context of a good article reassessment. If instead I believe the article is close to GA status, I am willing to copyedit it. Geometry guy 22:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten this article, but have been a bit busy (and have minor seasonal illness!). The January 2007 rumor is still a sticking point for me: it is sourced to a veiled article on About.com; the other cites are all from April 2007 and do not refer to a January rumor. That is unencyclopedic information without independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, and is cause to close as delist if it is not resolved. Geometry guy 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding rumors
I've removed the About.com source and modified the sentence to read April instead of January. I've posted a message on the main talk page to gain support for a slight restructure. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so THIS is why that About.com edit was made. I wish your edit summary had referred to Talk page discussion, instead of simply describing the edit. After closer examination, I agree that a sentence that says "Rumors started in January 2007" and then cites three sources from May 2007 that don't mention the January report is stupid. The last time I worked on the article closely, the section said "in January 2007, so-and-so was reported; in May 2007, these sources reported so-and-so." While condensing that section may have been appropriate, I don't think it was necessary or remotely logical to condense that into one sentence that says "in January 2007, sources reported so-and-so." The January report and the May reports were entirely different incidents. I'm going to fix that. It's not clear to me whether the reviewer will not approve of any article that states rumors started in January 2007 and uses only the About.com article as a source, or if the reviewer is indicating he won't approve of an article that states rumors started in January and cites that sentence with articles about rumors in May. Propaniac (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to say I think it's pretty ridiculous the amount of notable, worthwhile, cited information that's been removed from the article. When I wrote the background sections several months ago (for which I did a lot of research), I knew full well that I did not own the information or the article and that I could not control what happened to it, but I find it pretty damn obnoxious that it's been deleted not because the article's content is better without it, but because the sourcing doesn't meet one guy's standards, which seem to be quite disparate from the stated standards for a GA above: that the sources of all information be provided, and that reliable sources be provided for controversial statements. That would clearly seem to indicate that the standards are higher for controversial statements and lower for other information, as the previous GA reviewer seemed to believe. But whether it gets a GA or FA or whatever stamp of approval now, it's a worse article than it was before. Propaniac (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to the fact that the Good Article Criteria do not seem to require that all information be cited to "reliable sources" (in the Wikipedia definition of the phrase), in my view Jim Hill's blog does meet the requirements for a self-published source to be accepted as a "reliable source." If it's an issue whether Hill meets the requirements, I request that the reviewer explain in more detail how the requirements aren't met, specifically: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." My comments about Hill in the earlier GA sought to demonstrate that he is such an expert. Propaniac (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you have let off enough steam there to relax now. I am pretty lenient among GA reviewers when it comes to inline citation. Indeed I played a significant role several years ago in bringing the GA criteria into the form they have now. Inline citations are only required for particular statements, but GAs must still comply with WP:V which requires that articles should be reliably sourced. What a reliable source is depends on the nature of the information being sourced, and inline citations help to clarify which information is being sourced to which sources. The GA criteria require inline citations where the quality of the source is most important and where it is most important to identify the source.
 * Another thing that is unacceptable on Wikipedia is original research. The edit that upset you initially removed original research, in that it removed statements that were not supported in the sources cited. Your changes to the article have improved it significantly, in that the article now only states what the sources state. Thank you.
 * I welcome discussion as to whether or why these sources are reliable enough for the cited information. But I would also like to discuss which material is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a news source, or an online journal or blog, but an encyclopedia. To be encyclopedic requires taking a step back, and reflecting on what is significant. Who reported whatever rumor first when is pretty borderline encyclopedic material, in my opinion, but could still meet the GA criteria (3b is the issue) with careful selection and phrasing. Geometry guy 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My changes to the article were to revert that particular area to the version that existed when you reviewed it, before massive changes were made (presumably) to try to meet your approval. So if you're happy with that information and sourcing in their restored state, perhaps we can roll back some of those other changes that removed significant amounts of information.
 * I have no objection to a discussion of what content, and level of detail within that content, makes for the best article, but I also don't see any point in discussing whether certain content benefits the article, if you're then going to insist that the content be excluded because the sources are blogs. As I understand the course of events, your review indicated that all information in the article must be cited with sources other than blogs (including Hill's site), and this led to removal of all the information that was only cited by blogs, which was a lot, because blogs and fansites are the ones that track those kinds of details. The information left behind is essentially, "They announced it; they built it; here's what's there; people like it." If you are willing to approve of blogs or fansites being used as sources for at least some information (particularly when the information is that blogs or fansites reported such), then there would be reason to discuss the best way to treat that information in this article.
 * To reiterate my previous sentiment, I think Wikipedia and its audience are much better served by a more detailed, interesting and informative article where the sources of all information are readily apparent, than by a briefer and shallower overview with fewer, stricter sources that has won a stamp of approval from a Wikipedia committee or representative. Just my view, of course. I also doubt that either version would ever receive FA approval.
 * Also, if the criteria is supposed to mean what you say it's supposed to mean, it's awfully unclear about it. If all sources of information must be "reliable sources", why doesn't 2a even mention RS? My interpretation -- that (2a) all info must have a source, and (2b) a subclass of information requires reliable sources -- may not be what's intended, but it certainly seems a closer reflection of the actual wording. Propaniac (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is no, I am not happy with that information and sourcing, but it is better to have unreliably sourced information than unsourced information. Another small matter is that I am not a representative of any committee. I am simply an individual editor applying policy and the GA criteria according to past experience. With that in mind, let us get down to business.
 * 1) First to check we agree on the nature of the source material.
 * 2) * About.com is owned by the New York Times, but there is no reason to believe that the newspaper exercises significant editorial oversight over the content. Arthur Levine is not particularly notable. The article refers to a rumor about the development of the site while refusing to mention which "hugely popular" childrens franchise is being discussed. This rumor is not reported in the New York Times, and only one source seems to refer to it, namely...
 * 3) * Screamscape.com is an individual blog: "While this page is called 'About Us', Screamscape.com is really the work of just one person: myself." It is full of adverts and even some of the links open pop-up adverts that defeat Firefox. Its relevance to the article is that it quotes the About.com article and links it to Harry Potter and Project Strong Arm.
 * 4) * JimHillMedia.com is another individual blog, although he is a named individual that some sources refer to as a "Disney insider", and his blog accepts edited submissions. The disclaimer on the blog is a broken link. His article makes the link with Kuka Robotics, but does not refer to About.com.
 * 5) Second, the GA criteria and policy. Criterion 2 requires GAs comply with WP:V, which is a policy that includes a section on reliable sources, namely Verifiability. WP:RS is a guideline that the GA criteria only require attention to (beyond WP:V) for particular types of statements. Irrespective of the GA criteria, all articles must comply with policy, and WP:V states
 * 6) * "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."
 * 7) * "Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources; see below... Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
 * 8) Now finally to the material in question. It is problematic for several overlapping reasons.
 * 9) * The reliability of the sources is questionable per criterion 2. If Jim Hill is "an established expert", please list the reliable third party sources he has published in. At the other extreme, Screamscape.com violates pretty much any standard for a reliable source.
 * 10) * The material relates to rumors about the creation of the themepark, and only informs the reader as to which sources raised which rumors first and when. This is likely off-topic information per criterion 3b...
 * 11) * Well, it might be on-topic if reliable secondary sources considered it notable ("if the information is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so"). However, the cited sources are all used as primary sources, with the exception of the fact that Screamscape.com refers to About.com. No other secondary sources string together these borderline reliable primaries to create a notable story...
 * 12) * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic information is based on verifiability not truth. The combination of these sources to create a story about rumors may be a true story, but it is original research by synthesis, thus failing criterion 2c.

All of the above combined leads me to believe (even if I am not correct in every respect above) that this material is unencyclopedic, unacceptable in a GA, and removable by any editor per policy. Wikipedia is not a directory where every piece of information adds value. Some sources, such as Screamscape.com, link readers to poor quality sites which exploit their browsers and their trust. Others undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia. The world in which all information from any source is presented to readers is not the world of Wikipedia, and never has been. Geometry guy 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to start my response by saying I know you're not an official committee representative -- my point was that I'd rather provide an article that benefits the general readership than one that satisfies a bunch of wonks with a checklist, no offense intended (I'm a wonk, too). The word I wanted to use was "bureaucrat" but I knew you would feel the need to correct me on that one.
 * Next, the stuff about the January rumors. I'm actually not that fervent about keeping this material; I have a keener interest in retaining the information that's been removed from the "Previous attraction attempts" section (about which I will start a separate discussion). That being said, I disagree with your characterization of the situation.
 * The essential information I would like to include is that three separate theme-park-news websites each reported their own independent confirmation, within the span of several days, that the project was in the works. The provided sources are the websites themselves, and thus seem unimpeachably reliable for citing what the websites wrote. WP:V seems to indicate this is an acceptable use of self-published sources. I don't understand how the material could be viewed as off-topic. The article is about a tremendously anticipated project; the material is about the first news, confirmed by multiple sources, that the project was happening.
 * In case your objections might be appeased by simply rewriting the material rather than removing it entirely, I'll take a shot at it. What if those two sentences became, "In January 2007, About.com reported plans by Universal to retheme the Islands of Adventure's Lost Continent area to 'one of the most popular children's franchises.' In the following days, two other websites focused on theme park news reported their own independent confirmations that the new area would feature Harry Potter." Eh, not as big a change as I thought I could do; the problem is that About.com doesn't confirm it's Potter, and the other sources do, so I don't know if there's a way to write it as a single sentence. Still, it's briefer and doesn't refer to rumors. Propaniac (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts to seek compromise. There are two major stumbling blocks that you need to overcome, as I see it. First, if the Jan/Feb rumors are so important, why does no one refer to them? Second, Screamscape.com is an unacceptable source. If those issues can be resolved there is a better chance to fix other GA problems. Geometry guy 21:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what, I was going to keep arguing with you on this, but after already having spent too much time on it, I'm having a hard enough time verifying that even fansites gave the January reports as much significance as I thought they did, and that does weaken my support for including it. So I'm willing to give this one up and allow the information to be removed without further objection on my part. However, I am not going to remove it myself, at least not at this moment, and if someone else removes it, I would caution that although the article may only mention reporting beginning in April 2007, the article should not state that those were the first reports of the project.
 * I hope to broach another discussion here later today (it would have been yesterday, but I was foiled by an untimely browser crash). Propaniac (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these remarks - I commented on your talk page. I agree with you that the existence of these January/February reports means that April reports should not be referred to as "the first". I suspect that secondary sources don't do so anyway and false OR is even more unacceptable than true OR! ;) Geometry guy 22:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this sound ok? "In early 2007, several unconfirmed reports resurfaced about the possibility of a Harry Potter themed zone in Universal's Islands of Adventure theme park." This sentence recognises the reports were spaced out and not all at once. It also doesn't refer to the April reports as "the first". Themeparkgc   Talk  23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on how you're proposing to incorporate this text. I still think Nikki Finke and the Scotsman's April reports should be mentioned specifically, as those reports did receive a great deal of attention from other media. If this is intended to precede that information, not replace it, then I have no objection myself except that the article should say "surfaced," not "resurfaced," if the article doesn't previously establish that the reports had surfaced for the first time. (In other words, the article shouldn't say "Reports surfaced again" if the article hasn't mentioned reports surfacing earlier.) Propaniac (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)