Talk:Steel Vengeance/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Themeparkgc (talk · contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See below
    These issues have been resolved. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    See below
    These issues have been resolved. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    See below
    The remaining issue on its own is relatively minor and would not be enough to fail this article. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
    See below
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    See below
    The remaining issue on its own is relatively minor and would not be enough to fail this article. An improvement has been made in this area. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    See below
    The remaining issue on its own is relatively minor and would not be enough to fail this article. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Final Review: Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themeparkgc  Talk  04:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose
  • "Though the height record was only held for one season" --> "Although the height record was only held for one season"
    •  Fixed-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a follow up to this, when did Mean Streak lose its fastest title? The lead doesn't mention this and thus could be assumed that it still holds the record. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the other is the Blue Streak located at the front of the park" --> "the other is the Blue Streak, located at the front of the park"
  • "a small 5 foot section" - units should be converted using {{Convert}}
  • "The ride was due to shut down for the remainder of the season for maintenance." - did it shut down for maintenance? The way I read it as it stands is that it was due to shut down for maintenance but the fire prevented it from doing so. I know this probably isn't what you would intended, so I think a reword is necessary.
  • Should add links and/or explanations for "retracked" and "reprofiled"
    • There are no such links.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explanations then? (In reality, this is something the wooden roller coaster article should already have). As it stands "Mean Streak received its first major reprofile. Many sections of track after the first drop were replaced." -- someone could read this as being no different from being retracked. You just need to clarify the difference. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "operating season, Mean Streak' received" - random apostrophe for...?
  • "U-turn to the right, ascending the 161-foot (49 m) tall" --> "U-turn to the right, before ascending the 161-foot-tall (49 m)" (note the two changes)
  • "drops 155-foot (47 m) at a 52-degree-angle" --> "drops 155 feet (47 m) at a 52-degree-angle"
  • "(there are a set of trim brakes on the first drop)" - this seems a little disjointed - either make it into a full sentence or remove it
  • "a 123-foot (37 m) tall" --> "a 123-foot-tall (37 m)"
  • Should add links and/or explanations for "twisted turnaround", "airtime hill"
    • I'm not sure what I would link to.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • ☒N Well there is an article on air-time. I truely am not sure what a twisted turnaround is though. Is there a plain English way to describe the element? An alternative would be to add a new section to roller coaster elements and link to that from this article. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't even know what a twisted turnaround is. If you watch the POV, it looks like a regular overbanked turn. To comment on the airtime article, I think something should be brought up about improving those kind of articles that are in Template:Roller coaster. Many pages link to them but they're in desperate need or references.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If neither of us know what it is, where did the terminology come from? Is there a way you can explain it in simpler terms? As for the various articles on roller coaster terminology, I have a few ideas on this. We can chat about this another time. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each train has seven cars with rders arranged two across in two rows for a total of 28 riders per train" --> "Each train has seven cars with riders arranged two across, in two rows, for a total of 28 riders per train" - note both spelling and punctuation changes here
  • "48 inches tall" - units should be converted using {{Convert}}
  • "During the 2011 - 2012 offseason" --> "During the 2011–2012 offseason" - should be an ndash with no spaces
  • "It was the tallest and fastest wooden roller coaster with the longest drop" - either split this into two sentences or alter the "with" part. At the moment it would be like saying Kingda Ka is the tallest and fastest steel coaster with the longest drop, despite Formula Rossa being faster (you could say this because Formula Rossa does not have the longest drop).
    • I don't see anything wrong with it. I came across this source that happens to use very similar wording.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though it's been in that newspaper, I'm still against it. Maybe we could have the following in the lead... "It opened to the public on May 11, 1991, as the wooden roller coaster with the world's tallest lift, the fastest speed, and the longest drop". This prevents the latter statement being a condition wrapping the first two. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same again with the next sentence.
  • The rankings section should probably have some prose to introduce it rather than just have a table with numbers. Also maybe have notes to state that in the missing years the ride was not featured in the top 50.
MOS compliance
  • No mention of the ride being the fastest wooden coaster in the lead.
  • "according to many guests" - as I don't see anything in the blog post, the comments section at the bottom of the page really shouldn't be used to gauge the reception of the ride. I'd be more inclined to accept it if this was referenced to an independent newspaper interviewing guests.
    • Well Becca implies that several people at Cedar Point agree it's better. Unfortunetly, there are no news articles about this. I can say that the ride is much better and mostly everyone agrees. Do we really need a source for that since its an opinion?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cited source is a promotional piece from the park. Regardless of what the ride is like, if the park spent money to improve it their marketing department will advertise it as a better/new ride in order to get their ROI. Hence why we need a better source. Also, your query about sourcing an opinion, absolutely we need a source. Wikipedia guidelines state we must have no original research, have a neutral point of view, and not use Wikipedia as a means to voice an opinion. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I remember at the beginning of last season, there was a poll posted on Screamscape asking what people thought of the retracked ride. If I remember correctly, the vote was that it was much improved. Is that ok? If so, we need to find an archived page from early last season.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • ☒N Since Screamscape isn't a reliable source, you would have that to contend with. I would suggest you remove the sentence. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • I don't see how Coaster-Net, PointBuzz, Experience the Point and Coaster Grotto are considered reliable. Please provide evidence to their reliability.
    • Those have always been accepted in GANs.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of what else is out there, I still don't see how these sources are reliable. Did you have a discussion about the reliability of the sources in a previous GAN? If so, could you provide a link? Themeparkgc  Talk  10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't find one. PointBuzz has been referred to in several news articles so I know that's reliable. As for the others, I don't see this article passing if you're not going to accept them.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could only see about 4 articles with Pointbuzz mentioned which is better than nothing. As you said though, unless you could find replacement sources or prove their reliability, this area will probably be the one hold up point for the GAN. Themeparkgc  Talk  09:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have replaced all the ref problems.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good job. I'll accept PointBuzz due to its mentions in a handful of newspaper sources. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles of these references do not reflect what the actual title of the pages are: Ref# 1-6, 8, 9, 13-14, 16
    • Changed some; most of them are titled "Mean Streak" so you have to add something else to disambiguate them.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need to disambiguate them. That is what the date, author, and publisher information should do. The title field should reflect what is on the page (I generally use either the page title itself which can be seen on tabs, or the largest heading text at the top of an article). Themeparkgc  Talk  23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Not done Ref #2, 3, 4, 7, and 21 are incorrect. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I changed #7 but I strongly feel the others should be left. They would all say the exact same thing.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've gone for a workaround with the remaining references that ensures the actual page title is prioritised. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#1 - for the purposes of references from ultimaterollercoaster.com, roller coaster is one word
  • Ref#2, 3, 4, 16 - {{Cite RCDB}} should probably be used here
    • There is no RCDB number.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The RCDB number can be removed in favour of the URL parameter which should include the full URL. It just ensures consistency with the formatting of the publisher, author etc. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#12 - Stoddart is the author's surname not first name. Also, since I'd consider this a news source, {{Cite news}} should probably be used here.
  • Ref#13 - the video not published by Cedar Point but rather authored by them. The publisher is YouTube.
  • Ref#15 - the publisher of the newspaper should be added
  • Ref#20-23 - since Amusement Today is a periodical, {{Cite journal}} should probably be used here. Also a link to Amusement Today's article in these citations wouldn't go astray.
    • Cite Journal won't work because there's no archive URL but I added links to AT.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The documentation's section on URLs seems to indicate archive URLs are supported. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Cite Templates drop down menu doesn't have an Archive URL. Another thing is is that really the right cite template? Nothing has ever been said about that, even in the List of roller coaster rankings FLC.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • ☒N Since Amusement Today is a periodical (some people might not have known that in the other FLC), it should use {{cite journal}} which is for all magazines, journals and academic papers. As for the archive url, you can use the cite button on the toolbar to generate most of the code and then manually add |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Original research
  • "the longest ride time of any roller coaster in the park" - needs a source
    •  Done-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anything more recent than a source from 12 years ago? If not, can we state something like, "As of 2000, ..." Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Track layout Twister" (from the infobox) - needs a source
Major aspects
  • the history section gives no context surrounding the ride before its opening: when was it announced, construction timeline etc.
  • Reception section? This could ideally merge with the rankings section. It doesn't have to be just reviews as I know they are fairly hard to come by for roller coasters. Other items could include whether the park attributed a rise in attendance to Mean Streak, ridership statistics/milestones (e.g. in 20 years, the ride had approximately X riders)
    • Anything more for this section? Having only one source seems a bit biased. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look some more but you know it's hard finding reliable sources for that stuff. I don't think it's technically needed in GANs. I got the impression we only need a reception section in FAC.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do your best to expand this section. If you can't find anything more, I can completely understand. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • no mention of the manufacturer, designer or ride cost in the main body of the article
Images

The infobox image could do with a better caption. Alternative text wouldn't go astray either.

  •  Not done Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added better caption. Alt text isn't really required in GANs but if I have time I'll add some when I'm done addressing everything else.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article fails to meet the criteria, but it will be on hold for 7 days to allow these issues to be resolved. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astros4477 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 24 February 2013‎
Some areas still need to be addressed. I have marked the issues with  Not done throughout so you can easily identify them. I will return in just over 24 hours from now to make a final review on the article's status. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article, I am promoting it to GA status. Well done. Although there are some remaining issues, I feel these are not enough to fail this article as they are all relatively minor. I would still recommend you look into incorporating these suggestions in the future. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steel_Vengeance/GA1&oldid=1136231446"