Talk:Krake

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Units edit

Whats with the odd units? speeds in km/h, distances and heights in feet? Especially given germany's use of the metric system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.174.23 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Krake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 21:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC) I have had good experiences with Operation B&M. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review edit

  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) See below.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) See below.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Excellent.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Superb.   Pass
    (c) (original research) None.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Absolutely.   Pass
    (b) (focused) Very much so.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Yes.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Seems to be stable.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Yes.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Passes here.   Pass

Result edit

Result Notes
  Pass A quality nomination.

Discussion edit

Please add any related discussion here.

Lead & Infobox edit

Fine here.

History edit

Pass.

Ride experience edit

Please convert 700 tons into metric tons.

Tried to use the convert template but I can't figure out what parameters to use (do you know?).--Dom497 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
It has been done. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Also, the trains for the roller coaster were manufactured in Switzerland." Is it possible to determine the company of origin as well?

I could be B&M themselves but its hard to know for sure...there is no reliable sources that gives an specifics.--Dom497 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
That is fine. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Reception edit

Fine here.

Conclusion edit

All in all, this is a GA quality article. A few issues need to be mitigated; once this is done, I will pass this article. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Additional Notes edit

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Krake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply