Talk:DC Rivals HyperCoaster

Reception sources
Three sources used in the Reception section have been flagged as potentially unreliable by.


 * Finder.com.au (About) articles have editorial oversight and they state publicly that they don't have paid sponsorships/ads (negating COI). The author, Chris Stead (bio), has 24 years' journalism experience and has previously worked for Game Informer among others.


 * ReviewTyme (About) is an enthusiast site that claims to "provide an unbiased and educated review for people to make ... informed decision[s]". I can't say much else, other than to speak to their sizeable audience and quality of their YouTube content, but we're conveying opinions, not facts, and attributing as such.


 * Coaster Bot (About) is another enthusiast site. I don't see much about editorial oversight or experience, however their "Golden Cog Awards" use a near-identical criteria to the much-coveted and now-defunct "Mitch Hawker's Best Roller Coaster Poll". A simple vote-based list would be more questionable, but they use a fair and balanced system that avoids skewed results (see Amusement Today "Golden Ticket Awards"). On a side note, there's a very credible level of research and fact-checking that's put into their various "What Is"/"Explained"/etc video series.

I think Finder articles should be a clear-cut RS. As for the other two, if not reliable they are notable, and we're citing opinions not facts so it should be okay. Thanks for raising this! —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  04:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to attention, as I have pondered whether certain sources per Wikipedia's guidelines can be considered reliable, especially in the form of "enthusiast" sources. I do think by your point that the author of the "Finder.com.au" is reliable, but I'm still struck on the other two as I'm weary about using sources derived from YouTube-based creators. I'm unsure what defines these people as leading "professional critics/enthusiasts" (as per WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards) besides a large number of subscribers, which many of those could be inactive accounts. I do avidly watch some coaster-enthusiast content (CoasterBot, CoasterStudios, Theme Park Crazy, Theme Park History, etc.), however, they do have their faults, admittedly CoasterBot and Theme Park Crazy having stated previously in videos that their research was flawed in the past. I also have the same concerns as were presented in the 2014 discussion on removing the "Mitch Hawker Poll" from coaster-related articles (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 2) as Mitch Hawker polls aren't to the standard as the Golden Ticket Awards and is sporadic in publishing dates. Do we have any other means of stating their reliability or that they're indeed leading critics? This discussion may be well suited for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks because I had a similar concern back in 2019. Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 19:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)