Talk:Goliath (Six Flags Fiesta Texas)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 06:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking this review. Firstly i'll do a preliminary review then we will move onto a template for a formal review.

Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary points:

Proposal: Should we change the bracketed part of the title to Rollercoaster? As the article goes into detail on other amusement parks aswell.

Since there are multiple roller coasters named Goliath, Goliath (roller coaster) is a disambiguation page. Themeparkgc Talk 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and Six Flags New Orleans from April 12, 2003 to August 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. When you say it was at there until august 2005, when did the rollercoaster leave the park? Unless they moved it immediatly after katrina struck, which seems a bit unlikely.

Tweaked the wording of that sentence so that it reads that it "operated" at those locations during those times as opposed to being there at those locations during those times. Themeparkgc Talk 22:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part about it being standing, not operating after Katrina didnt make much sense and seemed to repeat itself. I had a quick go at fixing it, but could you take another look?

Tried to rewrite this... thoughts? Themeparkgc Talk 22:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ok now, thanks for that. Retrolord (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Goliath is a clone of several other Bolliger & Mabillard roller coasters (over half at Six Flags parks) with the only difference being that the track is "mirrored" from the other clones. This bit was mentioned earlier, about another roller coaster being a clone of Goliath, could we combine the two bits?

Done. Themeparkgc Talk 07:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the trains section, could we have some more detail? Some description of the cars appearance and things like that?

As it is i dont think it would pass the criteria for sufficient detail. Retrolord (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the closing date, what day in August did it close?

I found the last operating date for the park. Themeparkgc Talk 22:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add a source!--Dom497 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've rolled it back. Essentially the park was in weekend-only operations at the time thus the last operating day before Katrina hit would have been the Sunday (i.e. 21st). If anyone can find a definitive source for that, feel free to reinstate it. I feel my comment below about the requirement of an exact date for the GA review applies here too. Themeparkgc Talk 07:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source.--Dom497 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening date at thrill valley, what day in 1995?

Since Thrill Valley is a Japanese park and 1995 was before the real takeoff of the internet (where almost everything is online somewhere), it makes it hard to find English sources which are more specific than that. Themeparkgc Talk 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know it can be hard but if we dont haev sources and sufficient detail passing the GA might be a problem. I'll try and find solution. Retrolord (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. The exact opening date of the ride at just one of its locations shouldn't (by itself) be grounds to prevent an article from passing due to insufficient detail. Themeparkgc Talk 07:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Themeparkgc. What I want you (the reviewer) to do is to do a google search on "gambit thrill valley", "gambit thrill valley opening", and "gambit opening". I want you to click on every single link (except the videos) and see if you find an opening date that does not just say 1995. This is just to prove along with Themeparkgc's points that the exact opening date is not known. Also, most of the results that show up aren't even reliable. Finally, if you still really want the actually date, I have no problem going to other user/reviews and asking what they think.--Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woudlnt it make more sense in the infobox if it was in chronological order?

The main idea why it is in reverse chronological order is the article is mainly about the ride's current installation – hence that information comes first. Since it does have a history of being at other parks, that information was included next. Themeparkgc Talk 22:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Font seems abit messed up in the riders per hour section.

That is how it is intended to be displayed by Template:Infobox roller coaster. Themeparkgc Talk 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have some references for the dates in the infobox?

Done. Themeparkgc Talk 07:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the word batman in the infobox? In this part: Inverted Coaster - Batman

It is the model of roller coaster named after the original Batman: The Ride. I have added a link and a source to support this. Themeparkgc Talk 07:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few dates in the article needing citations. Shouldnt be too hard to get them Retrolord (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All dates now have precise citations to support them. Themeparkgc Talk 07:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of preliminary issues. I'm happy to provide assistance if you need any in correcting these. Once these are fixed, there shouldn't be too many more problems stopping the article passing. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Regarding the lead section, i am not sure if the MOS says anything about repeating the stuff from the infobox in the lead, but i'll check it out. Otherwise seems acceptable.
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).	I cant see any citations for the stastics such as speed and drop and such. Could you please add some? I know it's source 1 but it isnt very clear in the infobox or the lead what source they are from. Could you add the little [1] into the lead and into the stats in the infobox for clarity? Retrolord (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"Upon exiting the corkscrew, the train makes a right turn into the brake run." Could you provide more detail as to what happens after the brake run? Do you exit the ride? Also, I think in some parts the article is lacking detail. The trains section could do with some more info. And could you get the dates for the Thrill Valley opening date? Thanks.
	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.	I'm satisfied this article complies with all applicable criteria and am passing this article. Retrolord (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding points made in the table: About there being no citations for the height and drop, take a second look. It is reference number 1. About there being more detail about after the brake run and trains, I have added what happens after and detail about the trains.--Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, information at the start of an article doesn't need citations if that same information is supported by sources in the main body of the article. Looking at the body of this article the information is clearly supported by sources.

As for the infobox not having citations for the speed, height and other related fields, this is because it is currently impossible to do so. The infobox provides automatic conversions for that information and thus only accepts numeric values. If one was to add a source to the end of that value, a large amount of red error text would appear in the infobox.

Finally, I think it would be unreasonable to expect that the infobox and the lead should be distinctly different and not feature any repeated information. I personally can't see anything in MOS:INFOBOX or MOS:LEAD against repetition. Themeparkgc Talk 08:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]