Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Falcon's Fury/archive4

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 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 fourth nomination; the other three 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) 14:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cptnono

The lead seems short. It loos to be a good summary of the article, though. Consider adding a few lines if possible. (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)

I know it seems short but I feel like it gives the perfect preview of the topic without going into too much detail. However, I would be happy to add on to it if you would like me to. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might seem contrary to the above, but the lead bogs down in specific dates regarding the delay in opening. Would such details be better in the body with more general phrasing in the lead? (Summer of 2014, delayed x weeks/months, or similar)? (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)

All the dates in the lead can be considered "important" dates which is why I made sure I specified the exact date (dates of when an attraction opens is considered important).--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote "interesting soil conditions" is lacking. I found my self checking the ref just to get something more specific. Can it be reworded? A quick paraphrase without the quote would work.

The article never states what the exact conditions were so I fail to see what your are reading as more specific (do you mind explaining please? :D )

I assume the FAA is mentioned due to the height. A line explaining this would be useful.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"At the end of February" and "A week later": I think these need commas.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a previous reviewer that the quote box needs to go. It pinches the text with the image of the tower on the right.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Falcon's Fury's tower" image seems too large. I think a simple thumb with the "upright" parameter would be sufficient

I'm not exactly sure how you want the imaged re-sized but I just reduced the size to 200px.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the reader is bombarded with the term "queue" in the first paragraph of the "Ride experience" section. Can this be adjusted? (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)

I personally feel like its fine, but I took out some of the "queue"'s.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "tonne" the correct measurement to use before conversion? I'm under the impression that it is a "metric ton" in the US so it threw me off. I could be wrong, though.

I live in Canada so I have no idea! I was just going of what I used/was asked for during GA reviews for some of the other articles I have written. I could easily be wrong.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Robert Niles of Theme Park Insider..."is awkward. I think "tolerances" should be used instead of "limitations" (as the source did) and would consider removing the quoted line altogether by replacing it with a clearer paraphrasing of the idea.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of two of the Youtube videos jumps out as a possible concern. Are those reputable publishers in the industry?

I love it when I'm asked this question (I'm always asked it)! Theme Park Review is a widely recognized amusement related website. The same goes with In the Loop (also known as Coaster Crew). A simple Google search should show you. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is ref 16 a viable link? It redirects but there is a paywall it could be behind. You can use the permit without a link, though.

Are you sure your talking about ref 16. I think you meant 15. The website naturally forces a redirect but I provided the link so anyway wanting to check it out could go to the link, input the info mentioned in the ref title, and be done with it.

This was a fine article overall and is is a bummer that the previous reviews have stagnated. Most of my concerns are minor and I hope previous reviewers pop by to reassert their support if they still feel the sane way.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cptnono: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments above.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article has the most elaborate references I've ever seen. Do we really need three dates in every ref? (The archival and retrieval dates are surely unnecessary when you provide an archive link?) It's also overkill to mention "Government of the United States of America" or "The Washington Post Company" (right next to The Washington Post).—indopug (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: I know it may look weird but I'm just following the rules/guidelines of citations. From what I know, when an archive link is provided, you still need to provide the archival and original retrieval dates.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: Does the above comment indicate you've done a source review for formatting and reliability of sources? No pressure if not, just let me know as we'll need such a review before we consider promoting (there's already a request at WT:FAC). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not at all done a source review, Ian.—indopug (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I note below that Christine was satisfied with the refs, so after spotchecking the formatting myself I think we'll go with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reviewed this article at the last nomination and my only concern was met. I'd hate to see this archived again due to a lack of response, so I'll certainly give my support again. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Prose checks out, and refs look satisfactory. It looks like all concerns were addressed in previous reviews, so there should be no reason why this article can't pass this time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Falcon's_Fury_logo.png: first source link is dead, and "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Infobox"? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for checking out the images. Regarding the dead link, are you talking about this one, because it works fine for me. Regarding the weird sentence, it appears that has to do with the template not the uploaders wrong doing. :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article has had several reviews by now and has improved considerably; I'm not seeing any further issues that stand in the way of FA. Shii (tock) 12:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 12:05, 24 April 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.