Talk:Full Throttle (roller coaster)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

• Closed as unlisted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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 if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Image criteria is OK. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Has reference section. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Stable. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Query

• Tone is neutral, but the claim regarding the top-hat element is unsourced, so cannot confirm if unbiased. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• The claim regarding the top-hat element is unsourced, so cannot confirm if clear of Original Research. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• The History/Construction section perhaps contains a little too much detail. Can this be summarised so we just get the important information? I know it's a short article, but there's no need to pad it out for the sake of it. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fail

• Couple of challengeable statements unsourced. I've tagged them. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• The lead doesn't efficiently summarise information from the article. See WP:Lead. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Coverage. There's not a lot of information. The history section (should that be called Construction section?) contains rather trivial information about dates when construction walls were erected and when pieces of track arrived on the site. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's information in the infobox which is not in the article. Though it appears that information in the infobox is not cited. (launch system is 3 linear synchronous motor, duration is 0:55, 2 trains with 3 cars. Riders are arranged 2 across in 3 rows for a total of 18 riders per train, etc) SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On hold

• This feels more like the start of an article rather than one that appropriately meets the requirements for a Good Article. The information in the infobox is separate from the information in the article. I would expect the two to match up, and for all the important information to be cited. We have the construction cost in the infobox but not in the article, and that detail is unsourced. Was it on budget, was it on schedule? Are there reviews and comments on the ride? On hold for initial seven days to allow issues to be addressed. Will extend that if positive progress is being made. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 21:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for delay. I see some good work has been done. I should have time this weekend to read over and finish the review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is still work to be done. The lead and layout still do not meet criteria per WP:Lead and WP:Layout. The language is not clear per WP:Jargon, another GA criteria. What is "a top-hat element on a loop" for example. We still have information in the infobox which is not in the article - the $6 million cost for example. And information which should be sourced which is not - that $6 million again. Because there has been work done, I will keep this open for a little longer, though I would like to see the article somewhat closer to meeting GA criteria when I next look. I'll keep the review open for at least another seven days. Any queries, I have this page watchlisted, and I should be able to keep in touch over the next few days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No work done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

[Copied from my talkpage;]

I'm trying to place a reference at the end of the trains section, however I can't find a way to place it. I also seen your comments and adding more sources and trying to synchronize the main text and infobox information together. ///EuroCarGT 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Put the information about the train configuration into the article and cite the statement there. As long as the information is sourced somewhere in the article there's no need to cite it in both the infobox and the article - unless the information is contentious (such as being a world record). It's similar to citing the lead. Information in the lead should also be in the article, so - on the whole - there is no need to cite uncontentious information in the lead. I have the review watchlisted, so you can leave messages here for me, and I'll pick them up. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 09:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Progress

Issue	Fixed or In Progress
Sourcing of top-hat	Fixed
Seating arrangement and configuration	Fixed
Cost and budget	In progress
Ride duration	Partly done
Ride review	Doing...
Syncing both the infobox info into the article	Doing...

I'm still looking for reviews on the roller coaster. ///EuroCarGT 23:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

General comments

Can an uninvolved editor post reviews? I have some things that I would really like to post here concerning this GAN. Epicgenius (talk)03:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes - all views are welcome. Under the GA procedures all input is welcome, and I try to encourage that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Just stopping by to drop off a suggestion: The article should have a "Reception" section including reviews of the roller coaster.--Dom497 (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it should be included. Their' not much critic's review on the coaster yet. ///EuroCarGT 03:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, there should be hyphens in some places where there aren't. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've looked over the page, not sure where a hyphen should be placed. Epicgenius has placed the s-succession to the bottom. ///EuroCarGT 21:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

EuroCarGT, they are pretty minor / inconsequential fixes. I have fixed them already. Epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ///EuroCarGT 01:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I was just skimming over the list of nominations and noticed that this article has been on hold for over a month. This review should be closed as the nominator doesn't seem to be fixing the issues. Also, why is there a gallery for 2 picture? I suggest taking the gallery out and putting the images is the "Ride experience" section. Also, "Full Throttle's station is open air and is not themed unlike other coasters in the park. In front of the station is a dining area and gift shop in a building with "Full Throttle" badging" seems trivial.--Dom497 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Dom. The review has got a bit cluttered, so you may have missed the comments above in the hold section. I gave the nominator at least seven days, which expires today, though I'm quite happy to wait a bit longer as they have recently indicated they are still willing to work on the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately got a power outage in the area I live in and couldn't continue working on the article. You could feel free to close the nomination, but still want to get as much feedback as possible. And to Dom497 comments, I wouldn't say it's trivial however it should be stated in a different way that doesn't seems trivial. Thanks for your comments Dom and SilkTork. ///EuroCarGT 21:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@EuroCarGT: You live in Toronto? If so, you'd be the first Wikipedian I know to live in the same area as me!--Dom497 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dom497: I do live in Toronto. And the recent ice storm created the power outages in my area and the city, my contributions were low recently due to the outage. ///EuroCarGT 01:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@EuroCarGT:Ya, I had no power for a day....some family still don't have power. Anyway, I guess I should take back the comment I made about closing the review as you had no access to the internet. :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing as unlisted

Closing as requested. For assistance in getting the article to GA criteria, you could request a Wikipedia:Peer review; a copy edit; and/or advice/collaboration from Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Task Forces/Roller coasters. Good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)