Talk:The Swarm (roller coaster)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Put the article back in the reviewing pool, which involves making some changes to the article's talk page (I can do this)
Ask on WT:GAN for someone to take over the review (you'd do this)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Full review

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

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)[reply]

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

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