Comments:
- No DAB links, no dead links
- Files check out in terms of copyright
- Is there a reason "Attractions" is capitalized in the title?
- That's a mistake on my part. Fixed now.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Refs" column should not be sortable
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Link "dark ride" and "4D" consistantly throughout the "Type/Model" section; the "Type/Model" section should not use a slash per MOS:SLASH.
- Don't you think that's overkill of linking?--Dom497 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No. If I sort by "Park", neither the first 4D ride I reach nor the first dark ride I reach are linked. Link throughout the table. Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Use ndashs, not hyphens, where appropriate in the "Ride" and "Location" sections
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The height requirement really should have a conversion to cm
- This wasn't an issue in two other FL's I have: List of Canada's Wonderland attractions and List of Kings Island attractions.--Dom497 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Add the metric conversion. Use Template:Ntsc to retain sortability. Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Eventually, Universal filled a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws, a heavily themed attraction that was based off the film awkward wording; do we need "heavily themed" here?
- I reworded it. Better?
- I replaced it with "largest". Is that better?--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you define "largest"? By size, income, visitors, what? Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried again. Better?--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "most major additions" is vague and tell me anything; you can't substitute an adjective and fix the problem. How do you define "major"? By income, size, how? Seattle (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seattle: 3rd time the charm?--Dom497 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The table doesn't display the scope row tags properly; change the "|" to a "!" before the "scope="row"" tag
- Doesn't work (see the article revision history).--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It absolutely does. Now, finish the table, and add a plainrowheaders to the table's "class". Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but can you please explain what the purpose of the exclamation mark is? Based off your demonstration it appears to create "row headers" which I don't see a purpose for in this type of table. (I'm not super familiar with how tables work...I just use a general template) --Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Scope row tags are used to "help screen readers render header information about data cells", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Overview of basics. Seattle (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dom497: I would like for you to add these yet. Seattle (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seattle: Done.--Dom497 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the references, New York Times should be The New York Times: the article is in its title
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ensure all newspapers' titles are italicized
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 5 (Strother, Susan) was archived on October 17, not October 16
- Sorry, in my time zone it was still the 16th!--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Same with reference 3 (Oliver, Mike), though Strother, Susan is also listed as an author in the reference. Make sure all archived links reflect the appropriate date of archival
- Same as above!--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Use ndashes where appropriate in the references. Seattle (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: Hey Seattle. You still around?--Dom497 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
