Talk:Cobra's Curse

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cobra's Curse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 11:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not an expert on rollercoasters, but will give this one a look.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Is it well-written?

In general, well written. I pointed out two small concerns which I will adress myself.

• However, what i do not get here is the following: are the Snake King and King Venymyss the same person, or is Venymyss just the statue and unrelated to the king? The article needs to be very clear on that, especially in the head section. It is clarified later in the layout section, but I would establish that knowledge in the lede as well as the theme section.

• Also, are the snakes in the queue area live snakes? It reads like the guests walk directly in the snake's terrarium, so a little clarification wouldn't hurt.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

Dismbiguation, copyvio etc. all turn out to be fine. The article is sufficiently sourced with reliable sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

Yes. Gives a very detailed description of the the ride in all its aspects.

4. Is it neutral?

Yes.

5. Is it stable?

Yes.

6. Is it illustrated?

Yes.

Conclusion

Overall, a good and well-researched piece of work, qualifying for an immediate pass.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Article issues

DasallmächtigeJ, I noticed that this review was opened and passed in a very short period of time, so I took a look at the article, and immediately found issues with the prose. The GA criteria for well-written require that the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. This means that any sentences that are not clear or that ramble need to be fixed, and that the prose needs to be grammatical and spelled and punctuated correction.

Some examples:

• In the lead: The trains of the ride are able to lock and rotate in three stages, where the trains face forwards, backwards, and then into a free spin. The trains presumably don't face into a free spin, which doesn't make sense, but they might turn or go or some other descriptor.
• Also in the lead: Upon the development and completion of Cobra's Curse, the ride received mostly positive reviews from critics. Since a ride can't be reviewed until the reviewer can ride on it, the entire first part of the sentence is unhelpful and unnecessary; a simple "The ride has received mostly positive reviews from critics." is all that is needed here.
• History, last two paragraphs: the word "rides" here should be possessive: "ride's". There are a great many instances of this.
• Location subsection: The area of the attraction is located in the Egypt section of the park, of which it exists on 2.65 acres (1.07 ha) of land. This is a poorly constructed sentence. The rest of the section isn't much better, with incomplete sentences and other issues.
• Track subsection: The steel, tubular track reaches a total length of 2,100 feet (640 m) with the maximum height of 70 feet (21 m). They were fabricated in Germany and shipped to Tampa, Florida. Track doesn't reach a length, it has a total length; it does reach a maximum height as constructed. The "they" in the next sentence doesn't have an antecedent ("track" isn't a "they"). I don't understand why "shipped to" is included; clearly, if it was manufactured in Germany, it had to get to the theme park. I'd start by saying the track was fabricated in Germany and then give its length. The height has been mentioned earlier in the article, and doesn't need repetition here.
• Reception: this is not well-written. Just one example: Robb Alvey of Theme Park Review expressed that Cobra's Curse would be a combination of spinning roller coasters Euro-Mir and Sierra Sidewinder. What does "expressed" even mean here? The sentence beginning the next sentence is even worse.

There is unfortunately a great deal more here. I haven't checked the other criteria, and I don't have time. However, this so clearly fails the well-written criteria that I think the approval should be reverted at once, and a thorough copy edit required before any subsequent approval be considered. I will be placing a copyedit template on the article because of these issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Failing the article, or declaring it to be badly written is vastly exaggerated. While I would agree that some of your examples are debatable (which I will gladly look into later), most of them rely on your syntactical and semantical preferences and are not wrong per se. A free spin for example is something entirely different then a mere rotation. While one actively rotates, a free spin means that the breaks under the seats are off and it can spin in any direction. Also, a track can be used before completion, it is not uncommon to give reviewers test-drives before the attraction is completed (when the surroundings are still being built). While you are always welcome to provide additional input, I would suggest seeking a consensus before threatening to revert a GA based on your preferences. Even if all your examples were correct, while most of them are, as I said, debatable at best, the article would still be far from a failure. I will look into some of them later. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello (DasallmächtigeJ and BlueMoonset), I'm the nominator for the article's GA. Although I do appreciate the quick pass, I would be open for a more comprehensive review of the article and for it to be reverted back to its previous status quo as I do see there is work to be done in a full review. Although, as I am indecisive if the article quickly fails any of the GA points, I will do a few once overs once I get out of being sick, take the copy-edit into consideration, and do a little re-typing. After all, there is no deadline, and I'm more than happy to take the time to fix any prose problems the article has. Again, thank you DasallmächtigeJ for taking the defensive and BlueMoonset on the offensive, you both have valid points to consider. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DasallmächtigeJ, a review does not need to end in an immediate pass or fail; indeed, most have the reviewer pointing out issues from grammatical to sourcing to broadness, etc., there are some rounds of adjustments, and then the article either passes or fails based on whether it has, after work, met the criteria or not. What this article needs is a significant amount of work. I have not threatened to revert, though I should have been clearer that I thought you should do the reversion, and am requesting that you do so voluntarily and reopen the review. If you don't believe me on the small sample of issues posted above, then reopen and request a second opinion. You might also consider trying to find a mentor to help guide you in GA reviewing. At the moment, the prose issues are so significant that I have tagged the article with a copy edit template, because it badly needs one.

What seems clear to me here is that you still don't understand, deep down, what the GA process means, as witness this sentence: Even if all your examples were correct, while most of them are, as I said, debatable at best, the article would still be far from a failure. The GA review is not to make a determination as to whether the article is a success or failure as an article, it is to determine whether the article completely meets a specific set of criteria; if it does, it gets to label itself a "Good Article", if not, it doesn't. It's that simple. B-class and C-class articles are typically quite successful as readable, informative articles, but they don't qualify for the GA imprimatur, just Good Articles are not Featured Articles because they don't meet that higher standard of quality. If even a single one of my examples was valid, and they are, the article does not meet the criteria and no reviewer should give it GA status until they are all fixed.

Adding after edit conflict: Adog, thanks for posting. One of the great things about the GA review process is that the article typically comes through the review a better article: clearer, with grammatical errors and typos fixed, perhaps with added information to fill in a missing fact or event. I'm not a fan of quick fails because most articles will need some work, and the review should point out issues and allow time for the nominator to address them. (It's why the process allows for a "hold", which typically lasts a week but can last much longer than that.) Some articles are just too far from meeting the crtieria, which is why the quick fail exists, but I think this one can make it with work from nominator and reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset; I hear ya, I think it's vital to have article's checked to their fullest potential, especially scrutinizing small details which help tremendously with an article's flow. I have taken a small amount of time to address what you've came up with as well as what Das has said thus far (since it's a sample of what needs to be done, I'm sure there is some other needed prose to be looked at as I will address later). Let me know if you also want to review or help in the future, I appreciate all types of criticism, even the one's I might not like (also on another note, I appreciate Das working with a GA topic not being fully familiar with, it helps to learn and I think everyone gains something useful out of this). :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, I was on a vacation until yesterday evening. I see that most of the points made by BMS have been adressed by now. I take it that if there are no further complaints, we can remove the tag on the article?--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It is alright, I hope you enjoyed your vacation. I would wait until the copy-edit request is fulfilled as I had filed to ensure the article is 100% in prose and grammar. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 12:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

DasallmächtigeJ, I hope it was a nice vacation. I'm afraid there were many more copyediting issues than the ones I specified—I did say "some examples"—and Adog has requested a copyedit from the Guild, which should take care of them. The copyedit template should remain on the article until a full copyedit is complete. The question that remains is whether you will be willing to undo your passing of the article until the copyedit is complete, since it doesn't currently meet the "well written" part of the criteria. After that, you can take another look at how the article stands against the GA criteria and finish the review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

BlueMoonset DasallmächtigeJ; at the earliest, I believe the review can go on. However, given my limited time for the next weeks it would be in the best interest to get this done this week when convenient. Thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Adog, I see that the Guild of Copy Editors have completed their copyedit, and the concerns I had regarding the text failing to meet the "well-written" criteria appear to be addressed. Unfortunately, I don't have time to give this a more complete check on the remaining criteria, so I'm going to let the matter drop now. As far as I can tell, DasallmächtigeJ was not interested in reopening the review, though I hope they'll see just how much editing needed to be done to get the article to "well-written" in terms of grammar and "clear and concise" prose and adjust their standards accordingly should they do any future GAN reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset; appreciate it. Apologies if my sentence structure seemed to be rushed or hurried. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I am very busy at the moment and more or less inactive on Wikipedia right now. I‘ll take a look at it now.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A lot of work has been done here, I think all issues are addressed now.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)