Talk:The Swarm (roller coaster)

Requested name change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Already done. I moved the page as it was uncontroversial before seeing this discussion. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

LC12 → The Swarm (Roller-Coaster) – I feel that the name of this page should be changed to The Swarm since that is what is now named and that is the page people might be searching for.ThorpeParkGuru (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Modification needed: "roller coaster" is not a proper noun, and so should not be capitalized. Also, there should be no hyphen. Thus, "The Swarm (roller coaster)" is the correct new name. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Award Table

Why is the Mitch Hawker award table hidden in the reception section?--Dom497 (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumably because there is only one year of results thus far. I imagine the intention of the table's creator was to have it ready for subsequent years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Dead links: At least five dead links in the references. Find archiveurls or replacement references.

Dead links are not part of the criteria. They are fine for GA (this a common mistake made by reviewers).--Dom497 (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dead links detract from the verifiability of the article. Verifiability is a GA criterion. WP:V says "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Dead links do not allow one to check that the information comes from a reliable source, since the information is not accessible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:So the dead links have been fixed but as an FYI, none of that matters. What I'm about say comes from the essay of What the Good article criteria are not in the what not to do for crtieria 2: "Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF". - This is exactly what you have done; not saying its a bad thing, I've done it before too, and I know its sounds odd but the criteria is the criteria. As long as the reference is not a bare url, the reference is still perfectly verifiable. There was a long dissussion a few months ago asking whether dead links should be allowed or not. The final consensus was that dead links are verifiable as long as its not a bare url.--Dom497 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Duplicate citations: Duplicate citations should be merged.
• Otherwise fine: The article is reasonably well-written, stable, verfiable (with the exception of the above), focused, reasonably comprehensive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I've resolved the dead links. As for duplicate citations, I can't see any that actually have duplicated content. There are some that have the same title and publisher etc, but the date published and the content is different. E.g. the park posted two different Facebook videos on different dates under the title "war is coming". If there is something I am missing, please let me know. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the above responses. I have no objections to this article becoming a GA, but I have not done a thorough review or compared it to the GA criteria. My intention above was only to make some comments after copy editing the article on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. This statement should not be interpreted as one of support, only as one of non-objection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment

There are some prose issues that I think need to be addressed before the article is approved. (Note: this is not comprehensive, and I haven't closely examined the entire article.)

• Lede: if "The Swarm" should be italicized elsewhere, it should certainly be in bold italics here.
• History section, Construction and opening subsection: "turned backwards for the 2013"; this phrase needs correcting
• Characteristics section:

• Location subsection: italics are used inconsistently here (and elsewhere) for rollercoaster names: either they all are italics, or they all are roman. "Stealth" is not in italics. Additionally, the highly ambiguous term "themed retail" is used here. Please describe it in encyclopedic language, perhaps by giving examples.
• Theme subsection: both "themed" and "theming", which appear to be jargon, should be dropped. Make the explanation more straightforward.

• Ride experience section: if "near-miss point" is jargon, please rephrase. If the train in the corkscrew nearly misses the inclined loop track (or a train on it), make this more clear. In the final sentence, rather than restate "Thorpe Park's" here, I'd just say "the park's" (the wikilink could go in one of the previous sections); "Saw: The Ride" should probably be italicized, since it's the name of a rollercoaster.
• Marketing: I'm pretty sure that the song title "The Swarm" should not be in italics, but I'm absolutely sure that as a single it should be in double quotes, whatever the font.

In summary, a check should be made throughout so that the use of italics for rollercoaster names is used consistently. I would also advise against the use of the word "theming" (e.g., "an element of theming"): call it what it is, whether a billboard or firethrower or whatever. Finally, there were just enough missing words in sentences (including an "is" I added before starting this section) that I think the reviewer should do a comprehensive check of the article; it's the sort of thing a GA reviewer should do regardless, and needs doing. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I think I have addressed those issues. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

---

@BlueMoonset and Jonesey95: Whilst I thank you both for your feedback, I was just wondering if either of you would be willing to complete a full GA review of the article? At the moment the article is listed on the nominations page as being under review so other potential reviewers will probably look over it. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jonesey95 has signed up as reviewer; my assumption was that this meant a full review would be done, since people are not supposed to open a GA review unless they intend to see it through to the end. If this is not the case, Jonesey95, then please make it clear here—it's an understandable mistake for a first-time reviewer to have made, but please do not start any more GA reviews that you do not intend to finish. A GOCE copyedit is not the same thing as a GA review—indeed, sometimes they are requested by the reviewer—and the one is not sufficient to the other, since the good article criteria involve many issues that go beyond a copyedit. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As I attempted to indicate above, I did not intend to sign up as a reviewer, having never done it before and clearly not understanding (or even agreeing with) the subtleties of GA criteria. I was merely offering comments in an attempt to help @Themeparkgc: improve the article. Apologies for any confusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Themeparkgc, I'm not interested in pursuing the review. Since you don't have an active reviewer, there are a few options going forward, and I'm happy to help with them:

1. Put the article back in the reviewing pool, which involves making some changes to the article's talk page (I can do this)
2. Ask on WT:GAN for someone to take over the review (you'd do this)
3. Ask for a second opinion, but make it clear that what's needed is for someone to take over (I can do this, too)

Let me know which of these you'd prefer to do. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone with option 2. If that falls through I'll go with option 1, increment the page counter and renominate it. Thank you both once again. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad option 2 worked so well. Just as an FYI: it's better not to renominate, but just increment the page counter in the existing nomination and remove the "onreview" status: that way you still retain your nomination date seniority, rather than going to the end of the line with a renomination. Thanks, Khazar2, for taking over! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Full review

I can finish off this review. Comments to follow in the next few days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this looks solid and close to ready to pass. Two action points so far:

• "it was reported around the world" -- technically, the source simply demonstrates that it was reported in Australia. "reported around the world" may be a bit breathless anyway-- how about just saying "it was reported"?
• The lead should ideally touch on each section of the article, including "marketing" and "reception". -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I have resolved both of those points. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Spotchecks show no copyright issues
	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).	The article relies more heavily on primary sources (council documents, developer blog posts) than I'd normally like, but no extraordinary claims are based on them.
	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).
	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 as GA

Article contradiction

The lead and description both state the ride has five inversions, but the infobox says four. Which is correct? Stifle (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

New photo

Following from this discussion about changing the picture for Stealth's article, I realised this article also has a fairly low-quality image of the rollercoaster, so I'd like to change the photo to a higher quality one. The two attached images are the best in the Commons category (I promise I'm not specifically trying to pick the ones I took - the vast majority of the images in the category that aren't mine are the same quality as the picture currently in the article). I'm not sure which of the images would be better, so I'd like to hear any opinions/objections before I put one in the article. (Pinging GoneIn60 since he was in the Stealth discussion.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, honestly with resolution aside, the original picture in the article is superior in one respect. It depicts the train right as it enters the first drop from a great angle. The exposure is decent without any sun glare or washed out effects. The biggest issue with the original is low resolution (as you mentioned), and the fact that the entire drop is not pictured (zoomed in too far).

Between the two candidates, if I had to pick one, it would be the second image over to the right. It depicts more of the drop with the train closer to the beginning of the drop. But it's not perfect. The POV angle is not preferred (I had to do a double-take after enlarging the pic to grasp which element I was looking at, since I'm not familiar with the POVs of this ride or this park). Ideally, the sun wouldn't be immediately in the background either, which causes the foreground to appear darker and less-detailed. And the final nitpick (sorry), is it should be zoomed out further to capture more of the first drop.

Not opposed to replacing with that image, but I would consider retaining the current infobox image somewhere in the article. Also, the other candidate should probably be inserted into the article as well. Although it doesn't make the cut as an infobox image, it brings a valuable depiction of the headchopper element to the article. If we feel like we need to remove one or two images, consider removing some of the existing ones that have a lot of bystanders in the foreground. They are lower-quality in my opinion! Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've messed around with the images - adding the ones I proposed, moving others around, etc. Feel free to change it if you feel it could be improved :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The Swarm (roller coaster)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Fails point 2 of the GA criteria (verifiability) - contains original research (marked with citation needed tags currently, I've tried finding sources for these but failed), plus the vast majority of the sources are primary sources or dubiously reliable (such as the Daily Mirror, which is a tabloid with no consensus for reliability). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delist – Agreed. Far too much reliance on primary sources, missing needed citations, and isn't even up to modern WP:APARKS standards at this point. The editor responsible for its promotion was a cornerstone of our project nearly 15 years ago in its early days but may have passed on unfortunately.  :( --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.