This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Just a quick note to say that I'll review this one tonight, and do the Transformers one at the same time. Miyagawa (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Images: The concept image could do with the fair use template being filled out more. At the moment the purpose of use is incorrect, and the replaceable section is empty.
References: While Facebook and Linkedin are only suitable for use as references in some instances, I think that this is one of them as they are the official sources and are used in a manner which directly relates to them. So I think they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Some of the Facebook citations have an additional "Photo" in italics in them, but some don't. Is there a reason for that being there, and if so, should it be on all the Facebook photo based citations?
However, what makes Theme Park Review (and thereby the You Tube channel of it) or Theme Park Insider reliable sources?
Lead: A very brief summary of the reception section needs to be added, everything else already looks like it is included.
Overall, the prose is sufficient for a GA, although I would suggest that construction and opening are merged into a single section as otherwise opening is a little short. Miyagawa (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Firstly thank you for taking the time to perform both this review and the Transformers review. In this edit, I made a few changes to the article, including:
removed the non-free image as it is now probably replacable by a free one
standardised the Facebook references by removing "photo"
expanded the lead to include a sentence summarising the reception. Is this sufficient?
merged construction and opening sections
removed the Theme Park Insider reference. The content it was supporting is already supported by an array of other sources.
Finally, to the Theme Park Review/YouTube source. In a normal instance, I would not expect a Theme Park Review/YouTube source to be allowed in a GA. However, as the contents of the source are an interview with some of people from Sally Corp. (the designers of the ride), I think it should be allowed. We could change the template over to cite interview and/or remove the URL if you'd prefer. Themeparkgc Talk 22:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Lead looks good. If you could switch the template over to the cite interview one, I think that'll solve the issue as it'll be the interview itself that is cited and not the source that published it. Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)