Wikipedia:Peer review/Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant/archive1

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant
I've listed this article for peer review because, when promoting the article to good status, TheMagikCow wrote that the article would be ready for a FAC after a peer review. I would be grateful for any constructive criticism of the article that would help prepare it for a FAC.

Thanks, Neelix (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO

 * Lead
 * these playful names were later altered so that they are now more recognizable.
 * This is confusing. What's more recognizable about them?


 * The menu once offered a popcorn bisque, but poor reception resulted in this dish being removed.
 * This might be a good tidbit for the article, but it seems a little out of place in the lead.


 * Cathy Wood of the Daily Mail
 * The Daily Mail is a tabloid, so maybe this isn't the best source to cite, especially in the lead.


 * Location
 * and many areas dedicated to other activities.[4]
 * This is too general to be that informative.


 * and is one of only five restaurants in park that make this recommendation
 * "... in the park"


 * There are four restaurants in the park that offer table service: the Hollywood Brown Derby, Mama Melrose's Ristorante Italiano, the 50's Prime Time Café, and the Sci-Fi Dine-In.[5] 
 * I think you could drop some of the other restaurants as off-topic for this section and just say "it is one of four that offer table service". I also wonder if this is better suited for the section on Food, versus location.


 * a restaurant that is easy to get into without reservations but is not themed
 * This is more general info about the park, so it's a bit off-topic here, IMO.


 * Theme
 * where guests eat off formica countertops
 * "Eat off" is not great prose.


 * There are six picnic tables near the back of the room that are used as overflow seating. These tables are only used when the rest of the restaurant is full and there are guests who are willing to forego the experience of sitting in the cars.
 * You state essentially the same thing twice here, so either assume readers will now what overflow seating is, or copyedit so you only state this once.


 * There are too many blue links in this section, IMO, and the list of movies is excessive.
 * Food
 * The restaurant closes each day at the same time that the park does
 * Give the reader an indication of the time frame.


 * Popcorn is served as a free[8] hors d'oeuvre.[11] 
 * There are lots of cites scattered throughout sentences like this one. WP:CITEBUNDLE is optional, but it might be helpful to cleanup some of the refs.

Pretty good overall. I see lots of blue links, but maybe they are all appropriate. Still, make sure you aren't listing too many items consecutively. The article could benefit from some reorganization. Some lines, such as "The chefs at the Sci-Fi Dine-In are willing to make a wide range of dishes not on the menu if they are given 24-hour advance notice.[5]", read as slightly advertisement-oriented, so make sure the tone is neutral throughout and not promotional. Nicely done. Keep up the great work! RO (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of this section is too much like a list. Make sure you aren't listing more examples than necessary.
 * History
 * I think the history section would be better placed after location and before theme and food, but that's just my opinion.
 * Reception
 * Reconsider your use of the Daily Mail here.
 * This section would benefit from some reorganization, as you go back and forth between positive and negative opinions that might be better grouped together. You could probably trim a few of the less enlightening quotes too.
 * Conclusion


 * Thank you for the review, Rationalobserver! Your comments are helpful. I have implemented most of your recommendations with the following few exceptions. I retained the phrase "and many areas dedicated to other activities" because, without it, the article would state (or at least strongly imply) that Walt Disney World is solely composed of four theme parks and two water parks; it is the inclusion of this phrase that allows us to avoid listing all the other areas. I have kept the information about the park's other table service restaurants in the "Location" section because I think it most appropriate there; the "Food" section is about the food at the Sci-Fi Dine-In rather than the food landscape of the park as a whole. I have altered the description of the ABC Commissary to demonstrate why it is relevant to this article. I have reorganized the "Reception" section 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. Please let me know your thoughts on the changes! I would be glad for any further advice you might provide. Neelix (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius
I might just be complaining here, but I think you could separate the refs. Instead of having one reference that states, "For the street location, see Shumaker & Saffel (2003), p. 76. For the information about Star Tours, see Sandler (2007), p. 257. For the information about the ABC Commissary, see Miller (2011), p. 122.", you can put three references: one at each place where the fact is mentioned. (This approach might not be good, though, because then the article may be punctuated by way too many references.) Epic Genius (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, Epic Genius! Yes, this is always a trade-off. I had initially formatted the article as you suggest, but Rationalobserver recommended above that I bundle the citations to avoid punctuating sentences with citation numbers, so I followed that advice. I agree that neither solution is entirely satisfactory, but now that the citations have been bundled, I would prefer to leave them as they are. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns I might address before I submit the article for featured status! Neelix (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bundling the citations is also fine with me. Good luck with your Featured Article nomination. In the meantime, I will try to look over this article later. Epic Genius (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)