Talk:New Texas Giant/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shouldn't the article name be "New Texas Giant"?--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant in doing so per my reasoning here. If we were to want to rename it, a full requested move would probably have to be initiated as I am not sure whether an uncontroversial move would be accepted. I feel this would be outside the scope of a GA review. Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc: I understand your reasoning but than why is "New Texas Giant" always referred to as the coaster in the article? Either way, I let this pass as long as you promise start a full move request to see what everyone thinks. :) --Dom497 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: But if I'm on the "slightly oppose" side, why would I be the proposer of a move? If you think this is an issue, then feel free to start one yourself. The only reason why I refer to it as the New Texas Giant in the article, is so that I can distinguish between it and the original Texas Giant without having to write old/new all the time. Themeparkgc Talk 22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"After relaunching in 2011 as the New Texas Giant, the ride's popularity has returned" - Sounds a little weird with the "was". Kinda an option thing to fix.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it. Is it better now? Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, "Six Flags Over Texas performed over 1,200 feet (370 m) of trackwork on the ride in the 2008-2009 offseason, with the ultimate aim of improving the ride's smoothness. Although the maintenance did improve the ride, park officials needed a more permanent solution. Initial speculation indicated the ride would be removed entirely from the park; however, Six Flags Over Texas denied any intention or consideration to do so" is all supported by ref 6? (I don't have access to the ref so I just want to make sure).--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm not sure why I never added the URL, but I have now, so you can verify if need be. Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the cause of the accident published? If so I think that should be mentioned. Also, if possible, maybe include how this accident influenced many other Six Flags parks adding seat belts to their coasters (if there are no other sources than Screamscape, just ignore this comment) and how Iron Rattler was also closed after the accident (maybe this is going to far for the scope of the article?).--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lawsuit they only published the fact that it was not a mechanical failure, a fact I have now included in the article. I've also added the following sentence with a news article to support Iron Rattler's seat belt additions: "The incident saw Six Flags introduce seat belts as secondary restraints on other roller coasters within their chain". Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Additionally, a 540° helix after the mid-course brake run was converted into a 180&deg" - Bolded part needs to be fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Without losing too much speed" - This sounds boarder line OR because its hard to tell with the refs listed. I'd say its best to remove this unless there is a source that says exactly this.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 needs to be formatted. Also, try to find a better source that list's how long the ride is.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, missed that one. RCDB doesn't have the duration, so it has been removed (site note: Duane now lists the two rides separately [1] [2]). Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 16 is redirecting and Ref 14 is dead.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both with archive links. Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close but just needs a little work...will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: Thanks for the review. I think I have addressed everything. Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pass! Good work!--Dom497 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]