Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2015.

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant

 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a theme restaurant at Disney's Hollywood Studios where guests sit in convertibles and watch campy 1950s sci-fi clips while they eat. The article received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, was promoted to good status, and subsequently received a peer review. Neelix (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius
Funnily enough, while dining at ABC Commissary last week on my trip to Disney World, I took a peek at the actual Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant. I was quite disappointed as it only served fries and burgers (when I went, anyway. The source in the article refutes this, but...).

Anyway...


 * Most of the first paragraph in the "Location" section "Only Disney's Hollywood Studios ... plus Hollywood & Vine" should probably be placed into its own paragraph. "Location" could then be changed to "Context".
 * There are alt texts, and that is good. However, they don't really present a clear connection to the actual images. For example, the lead image has the alt text "A group of people sitting in mock cars facing slightly to the left of the viewer all inside a room with a black ceiling and walls painted to look like a landscape". The caption is "The interior of the Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater". If one were to read the alt text alone, they would not know that the picture was taken in the restaurant.
 * Do you have the exact day that the restaurant opened, by any chance?
 * The section header "Influence" could probably be changed to "Spin-offs" or something.
 * Could the footnote "Hollywood & Vine had resumed its Minnie Mouse character meals by 2005." be somehow integrated in the text?
 * Per WP:CITELEAD, and since the quote is mentioned later anyway, the sole citation in the lead could be removed, but I'm not sure if it should.
 * In the "Location" section, the sentence "The Sci-Fi Dine-In is located on Commissary Lane across from Star Tours and next to the ABC Commissary, a restaurant that, contrary to the Sci-Fi Dine-In, is easy to get into without reservations but is not themed." should probably be split into two sentences: "The Sci-Fi Dine-In is located on Commissary Lane across from Star Tours. It is also next to the ABC Commissary restaurant, which, by contrast, is easy to get into without reservations but is not themed." (N.B.: Actually, the two restaurants share a bathroom.)

More to come... Epic Genius (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review, Epic Genius! I have split the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Location" section in two as you suggested. I have also renamed the "Influence" section to "Imitation", which I hope addresses your concern; the EGV Drive-in Cafe and Bayliner Diner are not really spin-offs because they aren't owned by Disney. I haven't split off the portion of the first paragraph of the "Location" section because doing so would leave the first sentence of that paragraph to be its own paragraph, and the guidelines recommend against single-sentence paragraphs; the paragraph is fairly short as it is. Thank you for recommending that I reword the alt text; I had not previously been familiar with the currently prescribed alt text standards and I believe that I had been following an outdated set of standards in this area. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the exact date of the restaurant's opening in a reputable source. I would prefer not to integrate the footnote into the main text as this is exactly the kind of content for which footnotes exist; it has nothing to do with the subject of the article, but is included in the periphery to clarify some statement within the article. I would also prefer to leave the citation at the end of the quotation in the lead as this is standard practice despite not being explicitly required. I hope these changes and comments address your concerns! Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of the above further or if you have any more concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In regards to your first concern that the influenced restaurants aren't really spinoffs, @, I suppose the section could also be called "Imitations", as it is now. Regarding your other concern about the citation remaining in the lead, I guess it's fine, even though the same quote is cited later in the article. I'm going to keep looking over this later for more areas of improvement. So far, though, the article looks good. (The food, less so.) Epic Genius (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like the article! Most of the reviewers agree with you about the food, which I hope comes out in the article. Neelix (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the decor is awesome. I just don't like the food that much. :-( Speaking of which, in the "Reception" section, you should more distinctly combine the positive and the negative reviews. Right now, the paragraph order is a little murky. Epic Genius (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify how you would like the "Reception" section to be reorganized? During the article's peer review, I reordered the "Reception" section in response to a suggestion made by Rational Observer so that the first paragraph is about the restaurant in general, the second paragraph is about the consensus that the restaurant works wonderfully as an attraction but not as a food destination, the third paragraph is about positive reception of the food, and the fourth paragraph is about the film clips and other niche reasons for appreciating the restaurant. Do you have concerns regarding this order? Neelix (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I didn't see this in the peer review. However, I saw that some of these comments were critical of the restaurant, e.g. Paul Schultz of the Daily News writes, "Anyone who is a fan of trashy sci-fi movies of the 1950s should check [the Sci-Fi Dine-In] out." In his book Sci-Fi Movie Freak, Robert Ring calls the Sci-Fi Dine-In film clips "hokey", while David Steele of The Rotarian calls them "classically awful",and Rick Ramseyer of Restaurant Business Magazine calls them "campy". you said above, The first paragraph is about the restaurant in general, the second paragraph is about the consensus that the restaurant works wonderfully as an attraction but not as a food destination, the third paragraph is about positive reception of the food, and the fourth paragraph is about the film clips and other niche reasons for appreciating the restaurant. Maybe some transition phrases would make this clear. For instance, in paragraph 1, you can say, In general, the restaurant has received mixed reviews. Jack Hayes of Nation's Restaurant News calls the Sci-Fi Dine-In "wacky" and "on the cutting edge of sheer dining fun". (emphasis on the transition phrase, which I added and which you can modify at your discretion.) Epic Genius (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added topic sentences to three of the four paragraphs in the "Reception" section; one of the paragraphs already had a topic sentence. I hope these additions make the structure of the section easier to follow. My impression of the quotations you mention about the film clips is that these reviews are actually positive; B films often become cult films because fans appreciate the classical awfulness/hokiness/campiness, and the tone of the reviews seems in line with this type of thinking. Are you pleased with the "Reception" section as it currently stands? Neelix (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the lead image size; also, that file is tagged as lacking a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Independent of the above comment, I suggest upright ratios or something. Epic Genius (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the image review, Nikki! I have increased the size of the lead image as you recommended, and I think it makes the article look better. Epic Genius: Which images do you feel should make use of the upright function? Normally, this function is used on images that are narrower than they are tall, and there aren't any such images in this article. Neelix (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I didn't mean that type of upright. :) I meant the "upright ratio". Putting   creates a ratio that is 0.75 times the user's or computer's image-scaling preferences (for me, the default is 220 px, so the upright would be 165 px since it is 75% of 220). By comparison,   will scale the image on my computer to 220 px, and   will scale the image on my computer to 242 px. Currently, the lead image is 300 px. For me, a comparable upright is 135% of the original image, or 299 px.Unfortunately, you can't add upright without cheating. You'd have to change the code to  . :( Epic Genius (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, great! Do you have any remaining concerns regarding the article? Neelix (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not right now, no. I'd say it's all good. Epic Genius (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar

 * "For a period of time, the menu listed items with themed names" - this could be more specific, was it like a "limited edition" menu?
 * I think that the year it opened should be mentioned in the infobox and the first paragraph in the lead (but the latter is optional)
 * The reception paragraph in the lead needs to summarise that it "received mixed reviews from critics"
 * "The restaurant is one of only five restaurants in the park that recommend that guests make advance reservations" - no need for extra "that"
 * "which was considered at the time to be in keeping with the science fiction theme because the technology was so new" - 'was so new' sounds a bit informal, how about recently developed pr advanced
 * "The license plates are dated 1955" - dated from 1955
 * "In 2003, EGV Entertainment, a movie theater operator in Thailand" overlink movie theater
 * " Peggy Katalinich of the Tampa Bay Times writes that, although the food is only okay, "Who cares? Food is besides the point."" - 'okay' sounds unencyclopedic if it's not part of the quote
 * "specifically singling out the restaurant's roast beef sandwich as a ripoff, despite calling it delicious" - this is identical to the phrase in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaguar (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I have implemented all of your recommended changes. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions or if I have not sufficiently addressed any of the concerns you have already raised. Neelix (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking through the article again I will conclude my review with a support. It is broad, well written and the references (the ones I could access) all check out fine. I couldn't find any other prose issues with the article, although I would be slightly cautious over some tight-squeeze of text (where two images on opposite sides create format issues), but it doesn't seem to be much of a problem for this article anyway. Well done on writing another piece of quality work, Neelix! JAG  UAR   22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Support – The restaurant is plainly my idea of Hell, but the article is unsparing in its meticulous description of its horrors, there is no sign of bias, the prose is admirable, the sourcing is widespread and has every appearance of being excellent. I'm very happy to support – from the safe distance of more than 4,000 miles away. –  Tim riley  talk    20:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Support – The article looks like it is in good shape; it is well researched, written and referenced. I checked the references which have internet links and all of them work. Great work! Z105space  (talk)  14:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - Nice work. This fits all the FA criteria as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.