Talk:Six Flags AstroWorld/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 16:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I can tell a ton of effort has been put into this article, and I look forward to reviewing it. I'll post updates here periodically. ––FormalDude ^talk 16:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Planning and construction section's first paragraph needs to be trimmed to remove excessive detail. Keep focus on Astroworld.
• History section is missing content relating to civil rights movement and Jim Crow laws at the time the park was opened. This source from WashPo says that they followed the lead of Walt Disney by not explicitly preventing African Americans access, but instead purposefully building the parks in suburbs outside of cities so that they were not accessible by public transport, and by raising prices to limit less wealthy patrons.

Please see these changes by Mliu92. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding integration: with respect, the park in the link cited above is Six Flags Over Texas, which is in the Dallas metropolitan area, several hundred miles from AstroWorld. AstroWorld was not operated the Six Flags corporation before 1975, which would have put any controversy about the Six Flags policy at AstroWorld regarding the Confederate States flag outside the primary period for the civil rights movement. In addition, Judge Hofheinz notably supported integration during his political tenure as County Judge and Mayor, and I think it would be synthesis to assert the location of AstroWorld was chosen to perpetuate segregation in Houston. Refer to this 1969 article in Sports Illustrated as evidence of Hofheinz's (admittedly self-proclaimed) support of integration:

• Maule, Tex (April 21, 1969). "The Greatest Showman on Earth, and he's the first to admit it". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 13 September 2021.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I've found no errors.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Article is written in a formal and professional tone and follows all MOS standards. A particularly well done job with attribution and summary style.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Refs properly formatted.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Uses reliable sources with proper inline attribution throughout.

   C. It contains no original research:

   A review of the sources suggests everything in this article is readily verifiable, with no WP:SYNTH or original research.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No apparent copyright violations after reviewing the detector report.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There was only one section that I wasn't really comfortable with the length/detail of, and that has been resolved.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   There was one viewpoint I thought might not be represented, but that has also been resolved.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Clearly stable per revision history.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Good use of images.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Good use of images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.