Jump to content

Talk:Thunder Striker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThunder Striker 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
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Intimidator roller coaster on the South Carolina side of the Carowinds amusement park takes its name from the nickname of former NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt?

Tallest and fastest?

[edit]

Editors, caught up in Carowinds' marketing fervor, continue to add that Intimidator is the longest, tallest, etc. in the southeast. We need to set the record straight on this. Wikipedia's definition of Southeastern United States includes Virginia ... this is important because of Kings Dominion and its own Intimidator, which, if built to the design, will be taller and faster than Carowinds' Intimidator. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Intimidator (roller coaster)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Themeparkgc (talk · contribs) 02:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. I will start to look through it shortly. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I made a few minor changes to it rather than listing them here.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    While there are sources, some of them don't provide the information they should (e.g. #2 makes no mention of fibreglass trains). See other notes for criteria 2b & 2c below. Also the statement in the lead about the ride being a record holder in the Southeast has been disputed (see main talk page).
    In regards to ref 2, its kinda one of those things that the fact that the trains are made out of fiberglass is obvious. B&M trains are all made with the same materials so does this really need a ref?--Dom497 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess so. According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, if something is not likely to be challenged a ref is not necessary. I have shifted the ref to refer to only the first half of the sentence. The other statements in my comment above still stand. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The statements I was concerned about here have been tweaked appropriately. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    15/21 sources are primary sources, direct from Carowinds themselves. There is only one newspaper source. Surely some of the Carowinds links can be substituted with news articles like these.
    Looks much better now with less reliance on Carowinds press material. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
    Images used as references (such as this) do not provide any information that can be used as a source. I'd consider this original research as you are making a claim that cannot possibly be verified by the image alone. Similarly, this photo does not state the track is "Fire Brick".
    These have been removed by another editor. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Has most things I'd expect to find in a roller coaster article. Maybe some more details in the body of the article about its theme?
    Another thought would be to add some reviews of the roller coaster in a Reception section (see WindSeeker as an example). Any increase in visitor numbers attributed to the ride could also be included. Of course, if there are no published reviews (other than blogs, teenagers interviewed for the news and the like) or statistics about visitor numbers, I'll let this statement pass. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Satisfied these have been addressed or responded to below. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused:
    Does the article really need a section to say the station is unthemed and is used for loading/unloading. Isn't the latter obvious as it is?
    This has been removed by another editor. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Some more images or at least a better quality image wouldn't go astray.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    At its current state, I'd say this article is a fail mainly on account of the references, but I will put this on hold for 7 days to allow the items above to be fixed. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Hi, would it be ok if the 7 days to fix up the issues start on Tuesday? I'm heading to my cottage right now and won't be able to make any changes to the article until I get back?--Dom497 (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stupid as this sounds, just fail the article now. I will work on the refs at a later time. I'm not being lazy, I just don't want to rush fixing the issues as none of the refs you mentioned above from Google would do any good in the article and its kinda hard to find newspaper articles that actually provide some good info.--Dom497 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a lack of reliable secondary sources. I provided a link in the review to a heap of related news articles that were free to access. I didn't really want to spell it out but...
The part of the history section regarding the ride's announcement should not need Carowinds-provided press materials as this announcement was widely reported throughout the media (e.g. [1] and [2] would probably cover it if you put the citations in the right places). Moving on in the history section, the information about the opening was widely reported by the media as well (e.g. [3]).
That last source from The State, also provides information on the trains and the ride duration. Statistics such as height, drop angle and speed can be found in this article.
I've come up with this in about 15-20 minutes of searching. I'm sure more information could be found in these articles if you tried. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed up everything.--Dom497 (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly... Basically I would like to see the number of citations to Carowinds themselves cut down where possible as they are primary sources. To quote myself from earlier today — "The part of the history section regarding the ride's announcement should not need Carowinds-provided press materials as this announcement was widely reported throughout the media (e.g. [4] and [5] would probably cover it if you put the citations in the right places)." — this still has not been addressed. The information in citation #3, Intimidator News Release, has been widely reported by newspapers and thus could be replaced. Additionally, I'm pretty sure everything on the statistics page is covered by RCDB or is scattered throughout the newspaper reports. I doubt you'd be able to replace the construction milestone references from Carowinds themselves, but I think I am okay with them as they aren't everywhere. There's also another comment that I have added to the major aspects section above. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the reviews, this is really the only review that I could find thats NOT by coaster enthusiasts or random people from the general public. Is that review ok? Also, there are 11 Carowinds ref now, 10 can't be replaced. Ref 18 can't be replaced because no other newspaper ref uses the term, "panoramic u-turn". Finally, if you want a theme section, the only things that I could find that actually show the theme of the ride in detail (the plaza of the ride) is concept art by Carwoinds which is the last thing I want to add to the article. Other then that, the theme of the trains is already mentioned in the "train" section of the article. On that note, other then the reviews, is everything good now?--Dom497 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst that review could be used, having only one would be against Wikipedia's neutrality policy as it would only represent that reviewer's view. I feel like it is okay to leave it off then. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel all of the issues I have raised here have either been fixed or discussed. As a result, I am passing the article. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Intimidator (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) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thunder_Striker&oldid=1210844160"