Talk:Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit/Archives/2008

Hold your horses ...

Almost all of this article is speculation or derived from blogs, which are not verifiable sources per Wikipedia convention. The opening paragraph has all of three sentences, which isn't a bad thing ... except, two of those contain blatant speculation. Universal hasn't announced the project, so how is it possible to say that it would be anything close to Japan's Hollywood Dream, or what attractions would be closed to make way for it?

McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that the only verifiable proof in the article is the document which Universal faxed to Orange County, which Screamscape.com got a hold of. The article needs either an entire rewrite or deletion.--72.91.191.67 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Almost all speculation has been removed. Waiting to see how long it takes until it gets reverted. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New Verifiable Sources

Accoding to screamscape, Universal has filed various other documents for Project Rumble. They even have official links to them: Link--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollywood Rip, Ride, Rockit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA fail

I'm sorry to say that I must fail this article as it does not meet the criteria for a good article. The are sourcing problems as well as problems in the prose. Before re-nominating this article for GA in the future, follow these tips:

• Copy-edit the article. Articles need to have a strong prose without spelling/grammer errors, and this article has a few, as well as run-ons.
• Un-link the dates, as it is no longer part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
• Add more sources/references. Mostly the "Track Layout" section, only has one reference in the beginning, and the rest of the section remains un-sourced.

If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Best of luck with the article, iMatthew (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Article organization

I think that the "Construction" subheading should actually be moved up into "Attraction history," since its construction is more part of its history, not its layout. Further, we shouldn't be including all these little details, since there's a high probability that a reader of the article has never been to Universal Studios Florida, and thus would have no idea what we're talking about. I'm going to be bold and make the change, but please take a look and see what you think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)