Talk:Firehawk (roller coaster)

Firehawk (roller coaster) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 15, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Amusement Parks: Cedar Fair / Roller Coasters Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cedar Fair Entertainment Company task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Ohio Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

First GAU System

Stealth (Flying Dutchman prototype coaster) at Paramount's Great America was actually the first Flying Dutchman coaster to use the GAU to raise and recline the seats on the train (having worked at the park that year and seeing the "GAU Up" and "GAU Down" lables on the control panel confirm this). N Yo FACE 06:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KI Firehawk.jpg

Image:KI Firehawk.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patent drawing

Just a note that the patent drawing has been nominated for deletion on Commons. It may have to be removed. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Firehawk (roller coaster)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 07:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"After Cedar Fair Entertainment Company purchased the park and renamed it in 2004, they began downsizing it." I dont understand this, could you please explain it Done "Firehawk has a total of five inversions. It features one vertical loop, two inline twists, two "Lie to Fly" and two "Fly to Lie" elements.[7] Each "Lie to Fly" and "Fly to Lie" element is counted as a half inversion.[13][14] A "Lie to Fly" element is when riders are on their backs, facing the sky and they are flipped and face the ground.[15] A "Fly to Lie" element is the opposite." Section seems overly technical and confusing, too much lie fly fly lie jargon, could we simplify it? Done "(similar to a railroad switch. Dual-station operation allows for two trains to be loaded simultaneously for more efficient operation. This configuration existed since the ride debuted at Geauga Lake" Missing a bracket + What is the purpose of the railroad switch explanation? Doesn't really seem neccessary, a simple link to that article would do think. Done "the opening set for Memorial Day weekend" Could we please be more specific? Could we change it to a specific date? Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	"Firehawk officially opened as scheduled on May 26, 2007, in time for Memorial Day weekend. The second track however, did not open until the following weekend, on June 9, 2007." Citation needed Done After having a look at source 7, i don't see how it proves the statement "The third train has become a parts donor for the first two trains." The source states that it is "thought" this may have happened. Done
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Bit concerned about this part the incident section. It mentions that "which functioned normally" and "within the manufacturer's specifications" Seems repetitive and unneccessarry detail? Done "The cause of the man's death was not immediately released." Is this neccessary? We find out the cause of death in the next sentence. Do you think we could remove this sentence? Done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	PASS!

I have addressed all the comments except one. I don't know how I can change the "Fly to lie" and "Lie to fly" lines. They provide the information needed and it would be confusing without it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made an attempt to resolve the issue by only mentioning each term once. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted the missing bracket. As for the explanation of the railroad-type switch, we should consider WP:LINKSTYLE which states: "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper". Not only is the explanation helpful in this respect, but it also helps meet good prose style for having at least 3 sentences in a paragraph. If it is still decided to remove the extra info, then we should probably remove the entire Station subsection. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be ok with removing the whole station section. I don't see any reason why you would need to.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree. I'm just saying it would be pointless to have only one sentence in a section. I think the amount of information in there now is reasonable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a part in the incidents section.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comment regarding Incident section. As for "Memorial Day weekend", this covers a range of dates not a specific one as stated in the source. So, I'm not sure you can really change this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we change it to a date? It is a bit ambigous at the moment, and if you don't know what Memorial day is, a bit confusing aswell. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opening was set for Memorial Day weekend. A specific day was not set when that was released. You can't say the opening was set for a specific date when it wasn't. There is also a link to Memorial Day.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Astros says, there's not one specific date - there are three possible dates. Perhaps you can say "the weekend of May 26, 2007" in parenthesis after Memorial Day weekend if you feel it's absolutely necessary, but that starts to get wordy, especially with all the other dates in this section. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:25, 13

February 2013 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the article then, will pass soon assuming i don't see any problems. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not pass this article just yet; ref 4 is dead, ref 10's formatting is not complete, majority of the ref's are unreliable. These three things need to be fixed before the article is passed.--Dom497 (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed ref 4 and 10. Could you be specific about what refs are unreliable?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 05:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom497! Thanks for your comments, they are most welcome. After carefully reviewing the good article criteria, which all good article nominations are measured against, I can find no reason to not promote this article. Your points regarding the dead references have been addressed, and it remains unclear to me as to how the "majority" of the references are unreliable. Pursuant to the Good article criteria, this article is passed.

Note to Dom497, instead of immediatly putting this through renomination and applying your own personal criteria, something which is NOT allowed, why not just be bold and fix the problems yourself? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X-Flight's development?

About a month and a half ago, I had stumbled upon an interview concerning Six Flags Worlds of Adventure's X-Flight roller coaster (which at the time was about to open soon). In one section of this interview, Vice President Jack Bateman indicated that park management was considering naming X-Flight after one of DC Comics' characters. However, after issues with the coaster's location, they had decided on a more generic theme. You can see the addition I had made here.

The problem was, the source I had used (a Six Flags Ohio "fan-site") did not meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. Now, according to the fan-site, this interview was an exclusive story of theirs! So, unless somebody can find a more reliable source that has verified the DC Comics claim, I highly doubt that I could re-insert this information in a more proper manner. Perhaps somebody who knows more about the park could lend a hand? Megalomaniaman (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was the one who reverted it. Unfortunately, you are right that reinserting it isn't an option until it is picked up by a reliable source. We should strive to keep articles trimmed down to the most important details that aid in the understanding of the article's subject. Generally, the more important a detail is, the more likely it will appear in one or more sources. If that doesn't happen, then it's probably not important enough for Wikipedia. Even in situations where a piece of information is verifiable, inclusion on Wikipedia is not guaranteed. See WP:ONUS for more info. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Firehawk (roller coaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219112910/http://coaster-net.com/news/770-x-flight-cleared-for-takeoff-from-geauga-lake/ to http://www.coaster-net.com/news/770-x-flight-cleared-for-takeoff-from-geauga-lake/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Firehawk (roller coaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firehawk (roller coaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Firehawk 2009 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]