Jump to content

Talk:Steel Vengeance/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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
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.
References
Original research
Major aspects
Images

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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]