Talk:Main Street Vehicles

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Main Street Vehicles/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've had a chance to review everything, and just have a few queries! The ones that are key GA criteria are the questions from the source check, though I think the article would be improved by addressing the other notes as well. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• I've completed a light copy-edit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• When the sections include a list of Vehicle types in service, that's presently in service, right, not ever in service? If so, it would be good to include a note like "as of 2024", possibly using Template:As of. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking about focus, the blow-by-blow description of the route in "Disneyland" and "Magic Kindom" seems a bit excessive for such a simple route. Can some of these details be compressed? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Organizationally, should both Magic Kingdom and Epcot fall under a broader Walt Disney World heading? All the other sections are park-level. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for moving Epcot, but what I meant here was to use a Heading for Walt Disney World with sub-headings underneath it for both Magic Kingdom and Epcot. (And then things like "Horse-drawn streetcar operations" would be sub-subheadings.) But maybe I am misunderstanding how the parks work? My not-very-expert understanding was that both of those are "part of" Walt Disney World. I'm happy to defer to you if you think the current header hierachy is more appropriate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Each Disney park around the world is part of a larger resort property consisting of the parks, hotels, and other facilities. Walt Disney World is the one in Florida, Tokyo Disney Resort is the one containing the two Japanese parks, etc. The article is following a de facto standard format in similar Disney attraction articles where the attraction can be found in multiple parks, and only the individual parks are used as the headers. I feel that Walt Disney World being casually mentioned in the lead is sufficient. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 23:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, so Tokyo Disneyland isn't at the same "level" as Walt Disney World, the mirror to WDW is Tokyo Disney Resort. Thanks for explaining. In that case, the current organization seems appropriate, and I have no other concerns so I will pass this GA! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing some background reading about breadth, this analysis might be worth including: The Main Street vehicles add a background staccato of their own to the music: the clop of the horses’ shoes, the soft whir of the automobile, and the rumble and clang of the train. Both the traveling musicians and the vehicular sounds present themselves in opposition to the sounds on today’s streets and remind the visitor of the setting’s time period (1890-1910). (p 70-71 here) Similar idea with another source's mention of quirky sounds from the Main Street vehicles (p 194 here). This article also discusses several times how the combination of both horse-drawn and motorized vehicles captures a specific time period, itself memorialized as an idyllic time in Hollywood movies: The classic small-town film, Our Town of 1940 ... covers roughly the same idyllic period, 1901-13, as that represented at Disneyland's Main Street, when both horse-drawn and motorized vehicles existed side by side. All of that together is probably just two nice-to-have sentences about the historical effect of the vehicles, but, well, it would be nice to have. Otherwise, I don't see any vital ommissions breadth-wise. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think something like this would be great if it was included as a quote box in the article. What do you think? Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to prefer summarizing info over using a quote box, but I can see a quote working too. For a summary I think something like the following could work in the "Attraction concept origins" section: "The vehicles help evoke the turn-of-the-century time period of Main Street. The sounds of horses, trains, and old-fashioned automobiles make the area feel different from a modern streetscape. The combination of horses and automobiles on the same road also evokes a specific time period early in the history of motor vehicles." Maybe with one more sentence about how the mix of vehicles specifically evokes Hollywood portrayals of that time period as idyllic... That could be in combination with a particularly fun quote, actually. This is all "bonus" rather than necessary for GA status, so follow your heart. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenty of well-chosen and informative images, all with appropriate licenses. Thanks for taking several of these photos! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For a source check, I'll look at citations 2, 8, 10, 11, 36, and 40, as numbered in this diff. (I use a random number generator to pick.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 2, I'm not sure about MagicGuides as an RS -- can you tell me more about this source, or find another source? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a source that was written with editorial oversight, which is confirmed by the website's About Us page here: [1]. It was oddly difficult finding a source that said straight out that Mickey Mouse Park evolved into Disneyland. Many other sources mention it and imply it, but don't spell it out completely, per se. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's persuasive to me, and I sympathize with the surprisingly frequent problem of sources failing to state the obvious! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 8, 10, and 11 (to D23) verify the content and seem fine as
    WP:ABOUTSELF. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 36 and 40 (p 72 and 87 of Leaphart) I am not able to access. Since Leaphart supports a lot of this article, I would like to be able to see some of it. Would you be able to quote the relevant parts or email me a scan of p 72 or 87? I'd be satisfied just being able to check one of these. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the text from the paragraph on page 72 referenced in the article: Now that we have made the trip around the castle, let's take a look at the Horse-Drawn Streetcar Railroad layout. On the next page is an aerial view of Main Street. At the bottom is Town Square, and the spur to the Car Barn is to the left. The yellow line marks the streetcar track up Main Street, around the hub, and back to Main Street Station. In order for the streetcars to operate on one track, spring-loaded track switches operate as the streetcar runs counter-clockwise around the rail line. We'll see more about the switches in the next feature. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, that verifies the cited info without close paraphrasing. I'm happy with that for this source check. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio check looks clean. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]