Talk:Cedar Point/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I will pick this one up. First impressions: it reads well. Well done on the prose. I think I'll go in and make a few minor edits for clarity and conciseness (discuss if you disagree) and then we'll have to sort out some of the other issues. I anticipate the main challenge here will be sourcing: there are fairly large blocks of text in the article that aren't adequately sourced. I hope we can fix this.--Batard0 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article! Just leave all your comments here and I'll be glad to address them.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Review: The article is generally in good shape. There are, however, a few issues I think we need to address before it meets the GA criteria.

First, a few general points:

1) Use of the passive voice is pervasive. This detracts from the otherwise good and clear prose. The heavy use of the passive stems mainly from repeated descriptions of ride openings as "X was built in X year." I would suggest going through and trying to convert these to active constructions wherever possible. I'm not saying all of them should be converted; that's not necessary. But if you could use constructions like "X opened in X year" or "debuted" or "launched" more often, I think it'd be helpful. Done

2) There seems to be some inconsistency in the use of quotation marks around rides. Some are framed with quotations; others aren't. It would be nice if this were consistent. Done

Italics was another issue. Amusement park articles do not typically italicize ride names, so I have removed them from this article. — GoneIn60 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's helpful. More consistency is always good.--Batard0 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

3) The biggest issue, however, is referencing. The final paragraph of the Boeckling era section is entirely uncited. So are the second and third paragraphs of the following section. There are numerous other places where more citations are necessary. A few of them are as follows:

• "As railroad travel becoming increasingly common, rapid development of the area began."

I just removed this statement, it's not really needed.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I felt that the significance of this statement is needed to describe the area's economic growth which has direct ties to tourism. I added a modified version of this to the end of the first paragraph in the History section. Please review and provide feedback if necessary. — GoneIn60 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This is fine. All it needed was a reference, and this is a good one.--Batard0 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Edward Smith took over Cedar Point's management after the death of Boeckling. Little expansion happened through the 1930s; one of the few rides built in that period was the Tumble Bug. The decaying Leap the Dips coaster was demolished in the mid-1930s. In the 1940s, the restaurants at Cedar Point, including Ross' Hot Dogs, Coffelt's Fudge, Green and Silver Grill, Castle Sandwich Shop, and Momma Berardi's Home Made French Fries, flourished." Done

• "In the 1960s, the idea of "pay one price" season passes became common." Done

• "Those plans fell through, however. Cedar Point & Lake Erie Railroad opened in 1963, transporting passengers from the middle of the park to the back. In 1964, Cedar Point opened its oldest surviving roller coaster, the Blue Streak. It was named after the local high school's sports teams, the Sandusky Blue Streaks." Done

• "The Cedar Creek Mine Ride opened in 1969; it is currently the second oldest rollercoaster at Cedar Point." Done

• "In 1970, the Centennial Theatre, named in honor of Cedar Point's 100th anniversary, was opened. In 1975, Robert L. Munger Jr. took over as president of Cedar Point after Roose retired. The record-breaking Corkscrew roller coaster was built in 1976; it was the first roller coaster to span a midway and have three inversions. The Gemini opened in 1978 as the tallest and fastest roller coaster in the world." Done

• It would be good if you could find newspaper or book references for the information in the Dick Kinzel era section. A timeline on a website probably isn't the most reliable source. I would suggest consulting Google News Archive for possible assistance. Done

• "This was the first time since 1978 that a roller coaster was removed from Cedar Point." Done

That's all for now. I think if we can get these citation issues taken care of, it'll basically be fine.--Batard0 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed everything above, what do you think?--Astros4477 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Good work. We're making some progress. I still have reservations about the sourcing. One of the GA criteria requires references to reliable and verifiable sources. I would submit that timelines on coaster websites don't fully meet that standard. I'll add some more detail in a bit and perhaps we can get this fixed.--Batard0 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

During the peer review, the reviewer mentioned that this source is really good. It pretty much has everything the timelines have escept in prose. We could replace the timelines with that website. It has 11 pages though so we would have to create a seperate ref for each page, that's no problem though.--Astros4477 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed most of the timeline referencing.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good work. This is on track, but I'm going to take another careful look and get back to you. An official Cedar Point timeline I think is a fine source. I just want to make sure that all of what we say in the text is actually present in the references, so I'll do a spot check.--Batard0 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Going through for a second pass, here's what I'm noticing:

• You might consider getting a reference for the following sentence in the lead: "Known as "America's Roller Coast", Cedar Point is currently tied with Canada's Wonderland for the second-most roller coasters in a park." This is potentially challengeable, so I think it may be wise to source it and perhaps even give a date (i.e. as of XXXX year, it was tied with Canada's Wonderland). It's also somewhat unclear whether we're talking about the second-most in the world or North America or some other region. If it's in the world, I don't think we need to say that because it's implicit, but I want to make sure I'm understanding it properly.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done

• I'm putting in some Citation needed tags to make this and a later reference to the second-most in the world easier to find.--Batard0 (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• At one point in the Boeckling era section we say Cedar Point "was beginning to excel as an amusement park." This seems slightly POV to me. I'd recommend a more neutral alternative, such as "grow as an amusement park" or "grow in popularity as an amusement park" or "gain popularity as an amusement park" or "catch on as an amusement park." The word "excel" isn't terrible, but I think there are more neutral alternatives.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done

• The final paragraph of the Boeckling era section is cited with one source, but the page that's linked does not include all of the information discussed. I understand that the source has 11 pages and the info is scattered throughout them, but I would seriously recommend doing one of two things: 1) make the reference link go to the first page of the history; linking it to the fifth page implies that all the relevant information is there; or 2) put a separate reference after every one or two sentences that links to the appropriate page in this history. Since the rest of the refs follow the latter style when they cite the same source, I'd suggest doing the same here.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done

• Moving to the first part of the After Boeckling section, footnote 16 goes to a Cedar Point history page that does not include any reference to Edward Smith taking over or any of the restaurants that are listed. A lot of the other information in the following paragraphs simply isn't in the sources in footnotes 13 and 16.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done

• Moving to the second para of the Dick Kinzel era, I think you should cite the stats on the Magnum XL-200 immediately after you mention them, even if you end up repeating footnote 27. Same for the Mean Streak. They're in the sources, but these things are potentially challengeable. Same goes for stats about the Mantis, maXair, Skyhawk and Maverick. In general, I think any sentence that includes statistical claims about a ride or its records should include a reference at the end.--Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done

• Is there any reason the timeline is in reverse chronological order rather than the opposite?--Batard0 (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it was just the way it was done. Should it be the other way?--Astros4477 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with it the way it is, I suppose; it's not a big deal. It just seems odd to start a timeline in the present and go backwards...usually timelines are in chronological order.--Batard0 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Use a citation for the Bob Greene book in the Popular Culture section instead of a bare ISBN.--Batard0 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done

• The Popular culture sections's second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh entries have no citations.--Batard0 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Done

I have completed everything.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think it meets the criteria now, as far as I can tell. Well done.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

After making some improvements, the article meets the GA criteria.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose is clear and concise, and is free of grammatical and spelling mistakes.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   It meets basic MoS requirements.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The references are adequate for the subject.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Inline citations are provided as necessary.

   C. No original research:

   There's no OR here.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It covers the major aspects of the topic.

   B. Focused:

   It doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   POV issues have been corrected.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are from commons or have fair-use rationales.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are appropriate for the topic.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   It meets the GA criteria.