Talk:Sand Serpent/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 12:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already reviewed one of your other BGT coasters so it seems fitting that I take this.

(Reviewed version)

Lead

• Don't think the coaster's former names are important enough to be bolded per BOLDSYN.

•  Done Corrected per comments. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

History

• "filings for a new attraction were uncovered to the James City County that would replace the Wilde Maus roller coaster" I'm unclear on the meaning here. It almost reads as though the County would replace the coaster ...?

•  Done Re-worded. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ride experience

• Given the nature of a Wild Mouse layout, and with the prose reading how it is, there's a lot of repetition here and it's a little bewildering to read. I think this could be snipped down with no great loss. The reader won't care to know—and is left confused by—every time the coaster makes a left, then another left, then a right, then fifteen more lefts. Just the basic gist of the layout would do.

•  Done Reduced the wording and compacted any unnecessary turns. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Ref #3 "Busch Gardens plans expansion" supports a purported delay announcement. This is never specifically mentioned in the paper, only that the ride would open in April. It would be just as easy to roll this into the following sentence.
• Spot-checked #4, #6, #11 and #15 with no issues. AGF on all others, which are taken from RS.

•  Done Re-worded. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Images

• File:Sand Serpent wild mouse overview.jpg and File:Wild Izzy 1.jpg are both published under CC BY 2.0. Bit of a shame the shot of Wild Izzy has the better perspective, but no matter.

Out of scope

I always offer friendly suggestions to improve the page beyond the scope of a GA review. You may consider these during or after the review (or not at all).

• There is a lot of "the roller coaster" throughout the prose to the point of being monotonous. I've already reduced a couple but perhaps there are more instances where the reader already knows we're referring to it.
• "The roller coaster operates with single cars that navigate the layout, arranging riders in two seats across in two rows allowing four riders per car" this sentence feels very stuffy.
• Did some minor copy-edit as I read through, mostly serving the removal of prose redundancies. Please feel free to refine any of my changes you don't like.
• Was disappointed that the Anton Schwarzkopf didn't make an appearance. (inside joke)

•  Done @CR4ZE: Removed more terms to describe the roller coaster where not needed. Broke into two sentences. As disappointing as not finding too many sources of coverage for this ride, it is equally disappointing that the Anton Schwarzkopf did not also make an appearance in this article or ride contribution. lol
• Nonetheless, I appreciate the review as I've been relatively busy this weekend. All the best, Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

On hold for as long as you need! Not much to fix up. — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Result

Thanks for tending to the above, Adog. I cleared up a couple of issues still present in the layout description, but there is still room for improvement. Four sentences in a row begin with "The car then ...", so the repetition issues remain. However, this belies the GA scope so I'll pass as is and AGF that you can fix this promptly.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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/Fail:

   Well done! If he'd helped with the ride, the Anton would be pleased. — CR4ZE (T • C) 03:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)