Talk:Outlaw Run/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 5 December 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}

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

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Layout is OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Sourced. Though I am querying some of th sources used, below, I have found the article to be richly cited, and to have used a variety of sources to build and support the content. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• OR. I have one query on phrasing, below, but other than that the article appears to stick with what the sources say. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Coverage. No section appears too long or too detailed, and the article seems to cover the main points. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Article is presented factually and accurately. there's just one phrase I have queried, below. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Query

• There are two non-free images used. The first is the identifying logo, and such use is acceptable. The second, File:Outlaw Run - layout.png, is questionable. The drawing is copyrighted to Silver Dollar City, and its use is not essential as a similar diagram could be user created and uploaded. Is there a reason for that particular image being in the article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the second image. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the language used may be familiar to roller coaster enthusiasts, but not to general members of the public. See MOS:JARGON. Phrases such as "multiple inversions", "teaser website", "double heartline roll", "a high-speed low float", etc, would benefit from some explanation or rephrasing. There's also some casual phrasing such as "behind closed doors" which are not appropriate for an encyclopedia per WP:Words to watch, a GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have provided wikilinks where appropriate, provided a brief explanation of a heartline roll, and re-worded the high-speed low float. "Behind closed doors" has also been removed. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• WP:External links come under WP:Layout, a GA criteria. What does this and this have, that the Wikipedia article doesn't or can't have? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I already have them as references, so should I remove them? Themeparkgc  Talk  00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. The lead currently does not provide an adequate summary of the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Prose is starting to concern me. Along with use of jargon and casual language mentioned above, there's also unprofessional and awkward phrases such as " After Silver Dollar City decided they would be adding a wooden roller coaster, they started to look into possible themes.", and some clunky sentences at the end of the first section. All these combined make me feel the article would benefit from decent copy-editing - preferably from someone new to the article, as getting a fresh set of eyes on it would make the job easier and quicker. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The article was copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors at my request. I will see if someone will be willing to perform a secondary copy edit on the article. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• "Rocky Mountain Construction spent four years developing technology to allow them to twist beams of wood". Why did they do this - it doesn't appear to be explained. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added a bit more information to this, along with a source. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The announcement of Outlaw Run was met with great excitement" is an editorial summary that is verging on Original Research. About.com is considered dubious as a reliable source. Is Theme Park Review a reliable source? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the "great excitement" and re-worded the lead sentence for that paragraph. From reading that discussion regarding About.com, it seems that it is hard to put a blanket over all of it. According to his bio online, Arthur Levine has been writing on amusement parks for more than 2 decades for various sources, and has provided commentary to other media outlets. A quick Google search confirms this, with some examples including a piece for the Boston Globe, as well as providing quotes for The Washington Post and The Seattle Times. Whilst I wouldn't consider www.themeparkreview.com a reliable source in itself, Robb Alvey who runs the site has a similar presence to Levine as an expert in the industry. Alvey has been described by various media sources as a "professional theme park reviewer" and a "roller coaster expert". He has also recently presented a TV series and appeared on several news reports. As the cited source in the article was published in the Los Angeles Times who interviewed Alvey, I think the source is fine. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this FaceBook page being used as a source for this statement: "The steel plating is known as Topper Track and is found on many roller coasters that Rocky Mountain Construction have renovated". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the source. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this blog considered a reliable source? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

NewsOK is an online website for The Oklahoman. Although it is labelled as a blog, the newspaper considers Brandy McDonnell a journalist, who has worked for them for more than 11 years. I was under the impression that NewsOK would be under the same editorial oversight as the newspaper itself, hence its inclusion here. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

On hold

Information in the article appears solid. Concerns about the second non-free image, some of the sources and external links. Main work needed is a copyedit to improve clarity and readability, and to build the lead section. Review put on hold for an initial seven days to allow concerns to be addressed. I am willing to extend as long as positive progress is being made or contact is being maintained. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I will resolve the remaining issues shortly. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have completed a copy edit under the auspices of the Guild of Copy Editors. Here's a diff if you'd like to get a flavor for the changes I made. Feel free to modify my changes if something I changed runs contrary to accepted style or wording in the world of amusement parks. I tried to edit from the perspective of a lay reader with an interest in the topic but only superficial knowledge of it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I believe I have addressed all your issues. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Listing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)