Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Disneyland/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Disneyland

[edit] April 05 bid

• OK. Me again. The last time I put Disneyland forward for this nomination, the article was turned down. The article being turned down ended up being favourable, as the article was improved significantly with re-organization and unnecessary information deletion. I believe the article is one of the finest Wikipedia has produced, and a lot of team effort from a lot of Wikipedians has made it what it is, and that certainly deserves a lot of recognition - there is no better way than to be a Featured Article on the Main Page.

Now a Featured Article on any day is better than no Featured Article at all, but if the article was featured on May 5 it would carry a great deal of significance as May 5 is the day that the official celebrations of Disneyland's fiftieth anniversary. That would be extra special if the article was featured on that day, but as I have said, the purpose of this bid is most importantly to actually get the article featured. I hope you understand what I mean.--Speedway 19:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Object - the article as a whole is exceptional, but the lead section places undue emphasis on the name of the place, rather than acting as a summary of the article. You hope this to be featured on the main page - the lead section is usually taken verbatim and put on the main page. If you imagine these paragraphs on the main page, more than half of what would be there, is getting into the specifics of its naming. I suggest moving the information about the copyright nature of the name etc to another part of the article, and then build up the lead paragraph so that it can stand by itself on the main page. This is my only criticism. Rossrs 02:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is not a good summary of the article. "Political correctness" is entirely one-sided and without attribution of any kind, and appears to me to be a user's rant. References section is inadequate: while the article covers many things in detail, the references given is one book on Disneyland's early history, one brief webpage on the Skyway, and park brochures. Entirely missing is information on where, at the least, the detailed information on deaths in the park came from, how one car of skinheads was sitting outside the park, etc.--the article is very, very far from verifiable. There is no criticism. There are two-sentence headings. 119 02:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The lead section is inappropriate, references are inappropriate (too many unsourced claims, much of the info in the article clearly does not come from the sources mentioned in the "References" section). There should probably a single, much more homogenous history section with more actual dates (when were all the Theme Parks in the "Disney theme parks" section inaugurated?), with subheadings. Right now, we have an entire section on the opening day, then jumps 35 years foward to the "1990s". You'll note "Disneyland 2005 and beyond" doesn't actually any events that occured in 2005. The last sections (starting with "Political correctness") are all unsourced, and some are too short. Phils 10:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you to all so far have contributed, your points have been noted and are in the process of being rectified. --Speedway 15:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)