Talk:Thunder Striker/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Themeparkgc (talk · contribs) 02:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article. I will start to look through it shortly. Themeparkgc Talk 02:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- 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)
- 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)
- The statements I was concerned about here have been tweaked appropriately. Themeparkgc Talk 22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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".
- A. References to sources:
- 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)
- Satisfied these have been addressed or responded to below. Themeparkgc Talk 06:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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?
- 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)
- 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?
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- 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)
- Pass or Fail:
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)
- As it's only a guide anyway, I'll add two days to it. So 9 days from my original review. Themeparkgc Talk 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- If I can find time I'd be glad to fix the issues, I'm working on several other things right now but I'll try my best.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Dom, I'll leave it for the moment as other editors such as Astros might work on it between now and Sunday (UTC). Themeparkgc Talk 22:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I looked through the article and everything on the review page, everything seems to be right and the problems have been resolved. I might be missing something though.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- I think I fixed up everything.--Dom497 (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)