Talk:Iron Rattler

Iron Rattler has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 18, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iron Rattler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Amusement Parks: Six Flags / Roller Coasters Low‑importance

	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.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Six Flags task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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}

Passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Has a reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been edgy reverts in the near past, but article has been stable for at least two months. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Covers all major aspects that a reader might want to know about. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Focus - no section appears too long or too detailed. The table in the Characteristics section takes up a lot of space - however it could be argued that this is a clear and simple way of presenting the comparison information. Another editor may decide to present the information differently, using prose to explain the differences, however, I don't think that the table as it stands is counter to the advice in WP:PROSE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well sourced with liberal and useful inline citations.SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of original research. Article remains close to sources where checked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Most MoS issues are OK. However, the lead doesn't adequately summarise the main points of the article as required by WP:Lead, a GA criteria. The lead needs some work. I may have time to deal with that myself as there isn't much to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prose. Prose is mostly fine. The only issue is clarity regarding use of WP:Jargon, a GA criteria. Phrases such as "barrel roll inversion" would benefit from explanation for non-roller coaster specialists. See Outlaw Run where the same issue was dealt with - for example: [1]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

Sorry for long delay. I should have returned this GAN to the pot when I returned the others as I'd hardly started it. Anyway, I have some time this weekend and so will aim to finish the review before Monday. If I can't, then I will return it, as I don't think I will have time next week. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is a decent and informative article. My only quibbles are regarding the use of some phrases that may not be immediately clear to a non-specialist, such as "barrel roll inversion", and that the lead may not adequately summarise the main points of the article. On hold to allow these issues to be resolved. They are quite minor and I may do them myself shortly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up a bit, and now closing this as passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Iron Rattler. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in invalid GAR opened by IP

This article contains conflicting information. If the conflicting information is accurate, no explanation is given for the discrepancy.

In the first paragraph, it states that the first drop was 124 feet and that the train reached speeds of 65 mph. The second paragraph, however, states that the first drop was 166 feet and that the train reached speeds of 73 mph. These speeds and heights are both associated with the original wooden coaster, the Rattler, before the ride was converted into the Iron Rattler. If the Iron Rattler only goes 70 mph, it is highly unlikely that the Rattler ever went 73 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:10e0:bae0:f9d5:eda8:7590:b9f4 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: because only logged-in editors are allowed to open reassessments, whether individual or community, I have removed the nomination here and submitted the review page for speedy deletion. I have copied the entire text from that page here to preserve it. Perhaps someone who has worked on the article can address the concerns mentioned. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty good explanation for this - the coaster was modified after 1994, and it's stated in the article. It held this title until 1994, when its first drop was shortened from 166 to 124 feet (51 to 38 m), resulting in a reduction of its top speed from 73 to 65 miles per hour (117 to 105 km/h). There are other things that need to be touched up - for instance, the ride experience for the wooden coaster is missing - but I believe none of the issues are so major that there is a need for a GAR at this time. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The change in the drop is adequately explained, however, there is a problem with the speed. A 166-foot drop on a wooden coaster is not high enough to achieve a speed of 73 mph. I'll have to look at early statistics and see what it really was. Goliath (Six Flags Great America) only goes 72 mph and that has a much steeper and taller drop of 180 feet on RMC topper track which is likely faster than 1990s wood track.—JlACEer (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked multiple sources and even notes from Morgan, the manufacturer of the train, do not mention speed. The one and only source is MySanAnontio.com, but that cannot be correct. It is not possible to achieve 73 mph from a 166-foot drop — the physics does not support that. The drop would need to be a minimum of 190 to 200 feet for the train to accelerate to 73 mph. —JlACEer (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. I did find an El Paso Times article that cites a "top speed of 68 to 73 mph". Depending on how heavy the trains were, I think they could have achieved 68 mph. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]