Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Force/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Millennium Force[edit]

Millennium Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all criteria and has all the information a roller coaster article should have. The article did not get promoted the first time because there was not enough reviews. It has gone through all the necessary steps and is ready for another review. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC) The article is comprehensive and thorough, and I agree with the Support comment by Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) from the last FAC about the quality of the sourcing. Very nice usage of structural layout and image presentation alongside the descriptive text and track characteristics. I also like the tabular presentation of the Rankings section. Seems like quite the exciting ride. — Cirt (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Since I was invoked above, I thought that I'd weigh in. I stand by the above-mentioned comments about sources. This article is much-improved since I last PRed it. I have a few picky comments; once they're addressed, I'll support.
  • Ride experience/Queue: This system was discontinued in 2004 after several people complained it was unfair that others were going ahead of them in line. In 2012, Cedar Point introduced its Fast Lane queue system on the ride; visitors can buy a wristband which enables them to wait in a shorter line. The system was tested at Kings Island the previous year, in which it received positive reviews. The word "people" in the 1st sentence is repetitive; I'd replace the 2nd instance with "others". You mix tenses in the 2nd sentence. I'd change the 2nd phrase, after the semi-colon to past-tense. I think you can replace "in which" in the 3rd sentence to "where", since Kings Island is a place.
    • If I changed the 2nd phrase to past-tense, it would sound like visitors can no longer get Fast Lane. I fixed the other issue.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lighting: The two companies mentioned, since they're redlinked, should have some identification, such as where they're headquartered. This is just a suggestion that you can ignore if you think best. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with the above. Change to support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'll reread to see if I see anything else. — DivaKnockouts 02:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Fixed. Everything looks great. — DivaKnockouts 16:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I wasn't overly pleased about the source quality last time, and there are still a few issues in that regard. Refs 35 and 55 are to YouTube in addition to the aforementioned ref 40. Ref 39 is to Flickr, which isn't normally a reliable source either; commentary based on the content of photographs could be considered original research if not mentioned in the source itself. I'm still not 100% sold on this being FA-quality, even though my peers seem to be. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I removed 35 and 55, would you give your support? I think 39 is ok because there doesn't need to be any explanation. There are clearly red lights above the track and nothing else needs explained.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would help, but I don't think I can support as long as the Flickr source is in the article. It just doesn't meet my expectations for source quality in an FA, even for a roller coaster article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't support or oppose this nom so really my one suggestion means next to nothing. Anyway, wouldn't it maybe be a good idea to cite the Amusement Today sources similarly to the ones in the SheiKra article?--Dom497 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by JDC808

Lead

  • "Millennium broke or helped to break ten world records." I haven't checked sources, but this seems ambiguous. Did Millennium break ten records, or did it help, or is it both?
    • This is answered twice later in the article as it states Millennium did break ten world records.

I read the entire article and this is the only issue I really saw. --JDC808 ♫ 04:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it to read "Millennium broke and helped to break".-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. I Support. --JDC808 ♫ 17:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (Flickr images with no obvious problems). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • The are many duplicate links -- use this to check and rationalise them.
    • I've removed the links that I felt should be.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recall mentioning at the last FAC that it was not clear to me that all the world record claims are sourced -- to take one at random, I don't see any mention of "most rides at an amusement park" other than in the (uncited) list of records -- feel free to point out if I missed it. All such claims need to be cited, preferably in the list itself, even if that repeats a citation elsewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator still around? I've seen no response to the above points, nor for that matter any edits here or at the article since 25 May... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I'm here, I must have missed your comments. I'll address them this afternoon.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a ref to cite all the list records at the end.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all Done apologies, if any of those were mentioned before, but i'll try to list all points, that stood out for me:

  • Formatting looks OK, no obvious problems.
  • Please double-check refs 68 and 69 (Coastergrotto timed out), and ref 41 (Steel Tube, dead?).
    • 68 and 69 work fine for me, I added an archive for 41.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 17:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has some duplicate links (some in the same section), please install this tool User:Ucucha/duplinks, and remove them.
    • I have removed the links that I felt should be.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 17:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate ref 33 after "Coaster Records" to clarify, that both lists are covered.
  • External links: i wonder, if "Rollercoasterking" and "Rollercoasterphilosophy" could have been used. Obviously not for critical facts, but for some reception background or opinion statements. Could you clarify, why they are "only" external links? Is everything covered by other sources?
    • I didn't use Rollercoasterking because there's not a whole lot in the review and I think Rollercoasterpholosophy is way too long to get any out if it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 17:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • At first glance i thought, Rollercoasterphilosophy being too long was a strange argument. But having read (OK, skimmed through) the review, i agree. It contains lots and lots of personal observations and commentary, which are probably really interesting for a fan, but nothing really suitable for an encyclopedic text. GermanJoe (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links: See WP:EL "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." - The promo video seems to fail this definition. What helpful, directly relevant information does it contain? Please double-check all external links against that definition.
  • Ref 35, one of the Youtube-links, seems to be covered by other sources already - can it be removed without loss?
    • I don't think it hurts the article in any way. It actually really helps readers understand the ride.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 17:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second YT and Flickr link are OK imo. Both cover almost trivial statements, which can be easily verified by visiting the ride. However you should limit the usage of such "sources" as much as possible, and only use them for really uncontroversial info (which can't be covered by other types of sources).
  • Sources appear reliable within their specific area of expertise. GermanJoe (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All points Done, the limited usage of external videos to illustrate trivial facts should be OK (per our sourcing guidelines such uncontroversial facts wouldn't need sourcing at all, but i agree they are helpful for interested readers). GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Millennium_Force/archive2&oldid=1136096537"