Talk:Outlaw Run

Classification

Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but is there a reason this is being classified as a wooden roller coaster? I seem to recall the Texas Giant being removed from that category after it was retracked by Rocky Mountain Construction. What am I missing? Should there be a new category in the rankings for the new hybrids to keep them separate? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This runs on Rocky Mountain Construction's Topper Track and not the Iron Horse track. The Iron Horse track was used on Texas Giant and will be used on Iron Rattler – it is entirely steel. The Topper Track is added to a wooden track and thus it is considered a wooden roller coaster. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

But according to the Rocky Mountain Construction article, in regards to the Topper Track it says, "This steel track replaces the upper layers of laminated wood." So is Topper Track steel or wood?--Astros4477 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The topper track itself is steel but since it lays on a bed of wood, the track is still considered wood. See these RCDB links for confirmation: Outlaw Run, Texas Giant and Iron Rattler. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I dug a little deeper. From the photos and descriptions I came across, it appears that a typical wooden track uses 7 layers of wood for the rails that are essentially nailed together. Steel is used to pad the contact surfaces of each rail. Topper track takes it a step further by replacing the top two layers of wood with steel that is bolted in a tight pattern to the wood frame. Because the remaining layers are still wood, the industry continues to classify them as wooden roller coasters. As for coasters using the Iron Horse track and wood supports (what I'm calling hybrids), does it make sense to create a separate classification for these? I understand Wikipedia is not the place to do so, but I wonder if any experts in the industry are considering it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen many people use the term hybrid to describe that it is a combination; however, having a third category pretty much hasn't been covered outside of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hybrid roller coaster). RCDB does categorise hybrids (see [1] and [2]) but all of these coasters are either steel or wood based on the primary track it uses. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I realize the amount of coverage outside of Wikipedia is scarce, and we should be careful how it is mentioned in Wiki articles. However, with Outlaw Run and the redesigned Iron Rattler right around the corner, I suspect we'll be seeing the term used a lot more in articles, newspapers, and magazines over the next couple years. This example is just the beginning. Eventually, the industry will want to have a new classification to rank steel-wood hybrids, since their capabilities (or records, if you will) are somewhat in between the top steel and top wooden coasters. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

At this stage the category of hybrids seem to have stemmed from Six Flags marketing departments. We should keep our eyes open for wider use, but it will always come down to being either primarily steel or wood track regardless of what the structure is. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to ask yourself, "Why do we separate roller coasters into two classifications, wood and steel, in order to rank height, length, and speed?". The answer may not be so simple. Obviously, the capabilities of a wooden track differ from that of a steel track. All ranking categories would be dominated by steel. So at some historical point in time, the separation into two classifications was desired, probably more so by a marketing department at some amusement park. Who wouldn't want to lay claim to the tallest or fastest wooden coaster and disregard the fact that many steel coasters would still dwarf its statistics. So, while I agree that we "should keep our eyes open for wider use", I think it's important to point out that the motivation behind separating the track into two classifications might not be so different than the motivation behind creating a new hybrid classification. The track is what we go by now, but who's to say that it will always be the only factor for ranking and classification?
No response needed (though still welcome)...just thought I'd lend some food for thought! --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Outlaw Run. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.silverdollarcity2013.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://silverdollarcity2013.com/thanks.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sdctripplanning.com/clues/clue1.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sdctripplanning.com/clues/clue2.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206231428/http://coaster-net.com/blogs/160-rocky-mountain-construction-company/ to http://www.coaster-net.com/blogs/160-rocky-mountain-construction-company/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901054320/http://content.sixflags.com/comingin2014/ to http://content.sixflags.com/comingin2014/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019223439/http://www.goldenticketawards.com/pdfs/2013_golden_ticket_section.pdf to http://www.goldenticketawards.com/pdfs/2013_golden_ticket_section.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019223439/http://www.goldenticketawards.com/pdfs/2013_golden_ticket_section.pdf to http://www.goldenticketawards.com/pdfs/2013_golden_ticket_section.pdf

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) 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)