Talk:Python (Busch Gardens Tampa Bay)

Rumors

Anybody posting rumors of what might be replacing Python, DON'T. Please keep the article neutral and rumor-free.

Also, the claim made by the Serengeti Express commentators seem like weasel words and ad libs. It is not verifiable and keep this out of any of the pages until there has been an official word from the park.

Bgtbbum 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Python (Busch Gardens Tampa Bay)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:Pass

   Pass/Fail:

Review

• The general manager of Busch Gardens Tampa, William Thurman, expected the approval for the expansion was anticipated due to the recent success seen at the park in October 1975 seems oddly worded. What is specifically tripping me up is expected the approval for the expansion was anticipated

•  Done Re-tweaked to: "In October 1975, the general manager of Busch Gardens Tampa, William Thurman, expected the expansion to be approved by the city of Tampa due to the recent success seen at the Busch Gardens parks." Adog (Talk・Cont) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Why is reference 12 titled "Tigers"?

•  Done Added the sub-titled header to the title as well found on page 1D of the St. Petersburg Times article. Adog (Talk・Cont) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Why is reference 23 used twice when it can just be used at the end of the sentence she expressed "feeling a little unsteady on [her] feet but exhilarated."?

•  Done Deleted. Adog (Talk・Cont) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Adog, passing. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @HickoryOughtShirt?4: thank you for the review! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Adog, Consider nominating it for DYK. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @HickoryOughtShirt?4: will do! :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Python's double corkscrew element

• ... that upon opening at Busch Gardens Tampa Bay in 1976, Python (pictured) was the first roller coaster in Florida to feature inversions? Source: (McMorrow-Hernandez, Joshua (2015). Tampa Bay Landmarks and Destinations. Arcadia Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 9781467113663)
  • ALT1:... that the success of Python (pictured) at Busch Gardens Tampa Bay led the park to build several other roller coasters? Source: (St. Petersburg Times) & (McMorrow-Hernandez, Joshua (2015). Tampa Bay Landmarks and Destinations. Arcadia Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 9781467113663)

• Comment: Can be used without the image if necessary. I'm currently under the 5 QPQ credits holding 2, however, will complete one shortly.
• Reviewed: NHL 21

Improved to Good Article status by Adog (talk). Self-nominated at 00:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC).

• @Adog: great work on improving this page to GA. My review follows:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nothing specifically wrong per se, but in the original hook, I would recommend linking "inversion" (and also removing the Florida link per MOS:OVERLINK). epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Appreciate the review! Have corrected per suggestion and have done the QDQ. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adog: Thanks for the response. You don't need a QPQ for this one, though, since you've only had 2 promoted nominations so far; i.e. you can save the QPQ credit for a later nomination. epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)