Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Falcon's Fury/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the third nomination; the other two were closed due to a lack of responses/feedback; so please review! The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Thanks! Dom497 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending a response to one question, as I have reviewed the previous two nominations and it appears most if not all major issues were addressed there.

In the reception section, the statement, "For safety reasons, construction on Falcon's Fury was done primarily at night," lacks an inline citation directly after it. Is the source for this supposed to be one of the refs that noted complaints about the noise? If so, I'd add an IC after the above sentence.

@Bentvfan54321: Citation 21 supports the above sentence. For pretty much all articles I've ever written, I've followed a general rule that if the citation supports two (or more) consecutive sentences and there are no other citations that only support one of the sentences, only put the citation once, at the end. This would avoid overkill of citations. Hope this makes sense!--Dom497 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: Okay, that makes sense to me. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the prose is engaging and the article is free of any major, noticeable issues; I'd hate to see this get archived again due to a lack of response. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

I'm not quite familiar with the spelling on these topics, but why is "sky jump" with capital letters?

It's the model of the ride.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you incorporate the box quote in the first paragraph of 'Ride experience'?

Wouldn't doing so push the line for the NPOV policy? I personally think its better to keep the box.

Check the external links. It appear there's some problem with refs 16 and Seaworldparks.com. Other than that, I can not access BGT Fans website for some reason. I see this is frequently used, but the web's name sounds kind of "suspicious", at least for FA criteria.

I have no problem accessing the websites. Regarding the credibility, I'm only using it to document when things happened withe the support of pictures. I did the same thing with ShieKra (also a FA). Ref 16 is dead but it is archived by WayBack (its already linked in the article).--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References 59 and 62 are YouTube videos. The uploader of the first is Theme Park Review, but on the second one is Diana Schnellbach, a person unknown to Google, at least. If Schnellbach is not a journalist, I'm afraid you'll have to find alternative on that one.

I've changed ref 62.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see some Facebook and Twitter refs here and there, but they are from the Busch Gardens Tampa profile. I can not claim whether they are reliable or not, but it's useful to note them if some other has comment on them.

All those links are coming from the official BGT facebook and twitter pages.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Retrohead: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A NOTE TO FA ADMINISTRATORS: Please consider the supports as well as comments addressed from the previous 2 reviews before closing the review. The article has barely changed since the first review (other than issues brought up in the reviews).--Dom497 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the coordinators may review earlier nominations to check whether previously unresolved comments have been dealt with, supporting comments don't 'carry over' to a new nom. You are free to leave neutrally worded notices on the talk pages of earlier reviewers to let them know that an article they commented on before is again at FAC, just so long as you do it for all the reviewers and not just those who supported. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid can't see any progress since the preceding discussion, so I'll be archiving the nomination shortly -- pls feel free to try again in two weeks per FAC instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.