Talk:Firehawk (roller coaster)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 07:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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.	"After Cedar Fair Entertainment Company purchased the park and renamed it in 2004, they began downsizing it." I dont understand this, could you please explain it  Done "Firehawk has a total of five inversions. It features one vertical loop, two inline twists, two "Lie to Fly" and two "Fly to Lie" elements.[7] Each "Lie to Fly" and "Fly to Lie" element is counted as a half inversion.[13][14] A "Lie to Fly" element is when riders are on their backs, facing the sky and they are flipped and face the ground.[15] A "Fly to Lie" element is the opposite." Section seems overly technical and confusing, too much lie fly fly lie jargon, could we simplify it?  Done "(similar to a railroad switch. Dual-station operation allows for two trains to be loaded simultaneously for more efficient operation. This configuration existed since the ride debuted at Geauga Lake" Missing a bracket + What is the purpose of the railroad switch explanation? Doesn't really seem neccessary, a simple link to that article would do think.  Done "the opening set for Memorial Day weekend" Could we please be more specific? Could we change it to a specific date?  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).	"Firehawk officially opened as scheduled on May 26, 2007, in time for Memorial Day weekend. The second track however, did not open until the following weekend, on June 9, 2007." Citation needed  Done After having a look at source 7, i don't see how it proves the statement "The third train has become a parts donor for the first two trains." The source states that it is "thought" this may have happened.  Done
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Bit concerned about this part the incident section. It mentions that "which functioned normally" and "within the manufacturer's specifications" Seems repetitive and unneccessarry detail?  Done "The cause of the man's death was not immediately released." Is this neccessary? We find out the cause of death in the next sentence. Do you think we could remove this sentence?  Done
	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.	PASS!

I have addressed all the comments except one. I don't know how I can change the "Fly to lie" and "Lie to fly" lines. They provide the information needed and it would be confusing without it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Made an attempt to resolve the issue by only mentioning each term once. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Inserted the missing bracket. As for the explanation of the railroad-type switch, we should consider WP:LINKSTYLE which states: "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper". Not only is the explanation helpful in this respect, but it also helps meet good prose style for having at least 3 sentences in a paragraph. If it is still decided to remove the extra info, then we should probably remove the entire Station subsection. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not be ok with removing the whole station section. I don't see any reason why you would need to.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment – I agree. I'm just saying it would be pointless to have only one sentence in a section. I think the amount of information in there now is reasonable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed a part in the incidents section.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Addressed comment regarding Incident section. As for "Memorial Day weekend", this covers a range of dates not a specific one as stated in the source. So, I'm not sure you can really change this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Could we change it to a date? It is a bit ambigous at the moment, and if you don't know what Memorial day is, a bit confusing aswell. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The opening was set for Memorial Day weekend. A specific day was not set when that was released. You can't say the opening was set for a specific date when it wasn't. There is also a link to Memorial Day.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As Astros says, there's not one specific date - there are three possible dates. Perhaps you can say "the weekend of May 26, 2007" in parenthesis after Memorial Day weekend if you feel it's absolutely necessary, but that starts to get wordy, especially with all the other dates in this section. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:25, 13

February 2013 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the article then, will pass soon assuming i don't see any problems. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Do not pass this article just yet; ref 4 is dead, ref 10's formatting is not complete, majority of the ref's are unreliable. These three things need to be fixed before the article is passed.--Dom497 (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I fixed ref 4 and 10. Could you be specific about what refs are unreliable?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 05:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dom497! Thanks for your comments, they are most welcome. After carefully reviewing the good article criteria, which all good article nominations are measured against, I can find no reason to not promote this article. Your points regarding the dead references have been addressed, and it remains unclear to me as to how the "majority" of the references are unreliable. Pursuant to the Good article criteria, this article is passed.

• Note to Dom497, instead of immediatly putting this through renomination and applying your own personal criteria, something which is NOT allowed, why not just be bold and fix the problems yourself? ★★RetroLord★★ 09:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)