Talk:DC Rivals HyperCoaster

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DC Rivals HyperCoaster article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amusement Parks: Roller Coasters Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the `Imageneeded` parameter from the {{WikiProject Amusement Parks}} template call on this page to remove this image request.

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal DC Rivals HyperCoaster is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Reception sources[edit]

Three sources used in the Reception section have been flagged as potentially unreliable by Adog.

Finder.com.au (About) articles have editorial oversight and they state publicly that they don't have paid sponsorships/ads (negating COI). The author, Chris Stead (bio), has 24 years' journalism experience and has previously worked for Game Informer among others.

ReviewTyme (About) is an enthusiast site that claims to "provide an unbiased and educated review for people to make ... informed decision[s]". I can't say much else, other than to speak to their sizeable audience and quality of their YouTube content, but we're conveying opinions, not facts, and attributing as such.

Coaster Bot (About) is another enthusiast site. I don't see much about editorial oversight or experience, however their "Golden Cog Awards" use a near-identical criteria to the much-coveted and now-defunct "Mitch Hawker's Best Roller Coaster Poll". A simple vote-based list would be more questionable, but they use a fair and balanced system that avoids skewed results (see Amusement Today's "Golden Ticket Awards"). On a side note, there's a very credible level of research and fact-checking that's put into their various "What Is"/"Explained"/etc video series.

I think Finder articles should be a clear-cut RS. As for the other two, if not reliable they are notable, and we're citing opinions not facts so it should be okay. Thanks for raising this! — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE: Thank you for bringing this to attention, as I have pondered whether certain sources per Wikipedia's guidelines can be considered reliable, especially in the form of "enthusiast" sources. I do think by your point that the author of the "Finder.com.au" is reliable, but I'm still struck on the other two as I'm weary about using sources derived from YouTube-based creators. I'm unsure what defines these people as leading "professional critics/enthusiasts" (as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards) besides a large number of subscribers, which many of those could be inactive accounts. I do avidly watch some coaster-enthusiast content (CoasterBot, CoasterStudios, Theme Park Crazy, Theme Park History, etc.), however, they do have their faults, admittedly CoasterBot and Theme Park Crazy having stated previously in videos that their research was flawed in the past. I also have the same concerns as were presented in the 2014 discussion on removing the "Mitch Hawker Poll" from coaster-related articles (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 2#Mitch Hawker's roller coaster polls - RS?) as Mitch Hawker polls aren't to the standard as the Golden Ticket Awards and is sporadic in publishing dates. Do we have any other means of stating their reliability or that they're indeed leading critics? This discussion may be well suited for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks because I had a similar concern back in 2019. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]