Talk:Abyss (roller coaster)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 17:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
- Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Good Article review progress box
|
- Disambig links: OK
- External links: OK
- Reference check: OK
- Comments: I'll be brief again. The lead is missing the development and construction details. The image of the coaster is not the Abyss, this should be fixed or removed as it is misleading. History has some errors with the prose "would be manufactured" instead of "was" and some issue with "seven, 7-day weeks". It seems that an unexplained or possibly a pun is used for its opening date of Friday the 13th; if it is a pun from the marketing, please explain it otherwise remove it. Another possible pun is "filled a void" in the next paragraph, this should be altered. Mark Shaw's proclamation of it "the most exhilarating ride" seems a bit questionable as he is not a neutral or third party. The ride experience section has some jargon in roller coaster terminology with "dive loop" and "air-time hill" which reduces the accessibility of the text. Prose errors in the Reception section include "He describes", which should be "described" because he is not currently (presently) describing. I dislike the "their legs were shaking..." addition, snip it short and cut "Stated" and just make it "Austrian Associated Press commended the ride's..." Reference 17 is a wordpress, but seems acceptable. Ref 19 is a youtube source, but it is acceptable from Today Tonight. I believe more on the design and development of the coaster is needed, as the article is still sparse in details. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri: Thanks for this review as well. I have addressed most of the issues here. I have explained air-time hill in the article, however, I am not sure of a good way to explain some of the other terms without detracting from the flow of the overall article. I think all jargon has been linked at its first mention in the article and in many previous cases that has sufficed. The second thing is you suggested the information about the ride's design and development should be expanded. Unfortunately I can't think of anything else to add here that can be reliably sourced. If there is anything else you would like me to modify, please let me know. Themeparkgc Talk 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to ruin the prose for the terminology to be really clear. I'll check it over now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri: Thanks for this review as well. I have addressed most of the issues here. I have explained air-time hill in the article, however, I am not sure of a good way to explain some of the other terms without detracting from the flow of the overall article. I think all jargon has been linked at its first mention in the article and in many previous cases that has sufficed. The second thing is you suggested the information about the ride's design and development should be expanded. Unfortunately I can't think of anything else to add here that can be reliably sourced. If there is anything else you would like me to modify, please let me know. Themeparkgc Talk 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
The changes are good and I believe meets the good article criteria. It is not as comprehensive as I believe it could be, but I do think that this highlights all the major points of the construction, design, appearance and reception of the roller coaster. Such an article would be a fitting addition to a print encyclopedia and as such this article meets the GA criteria. Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)