Talk:Leviathan (Canada's Wonderland)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bladeboy1889 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bladeboy1889 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When reviewing articles I tend to make any simple / general prose tweaks myself and then add notes section by section with any issues, queries. The changes outlined are suggestions, I'm happy to discuss any points, particularly if there is a strong imperative as to why the changes shouldn't be made. The aim of the review is to (hopefully) pass the article rather than to find reasons to fail it.

First rider auction
 * The second notation of CAN dollars should be removed as per MOS.
 * ✅--Dom497 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Riders were '...granted to be...' - sounds a pretty clunky phrase, can we come up with an alternative?
 * ✅--Dom497 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Track
 * The ref to the Roller coaster database (35) is giving me a dead link. I'm guessing this ref is crucial to make sense of the following comments? (see below)
 * ✅--Dom497 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The comparisons with other coasters - I think this could do with some revision / re-writing. The coasters are mentioned without explanation of what or where they are.  OK I guessed they were other coasters but maybe some readers would be thrown by some random names suddenly being thrown in.  We don't need chapter and verse but maybe a way of adding some context?
 * ✅--Dom497 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Station and plaza
 * These two sections are pretty minimal so I think they could be merged.
 * ✅--Dom497 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Experience
 * As the first element only amounts to one sentence, does it really need a subsection for ride layout? Could they be merged into one?  Or is their more expansion that could be done on the first part? (eg something about the theming, are there any interesting/notable elements or entertainment whilst queuing?)
 * This is Cedar Fair we are talking about. As much as theming goes, other then the Leviathan sculpture in the plaza, the station with a medieval design, and the tunnel (which I have now added to the experience section) there is no other themeing within the ride.--Dom497 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha ok - fair enough. It might be an idea include the gift shop at some point though (as from what I read it's one of only two ride based gift shops in the park?)Bladeboy1889 (talk)
 * Even though that there are only 2 ride gift shops and one is for Leviathan, nothing on the internet supports it, therefore, it can not be included.--Dom497 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I found a reference for it, I've added the gift shop to the plaza section of the article. I've also merged the ride layout section up and into the experience section as originally suggested. Themeparkgc   Talk  23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Other comments
 * Obviously it's still quite a new coaster but a section on reception would be useful, even if it's initial press reviews or stuff about visitor numbers etc.
 * My main concern on why I haven't added a reception section is because all the news paper reviews are coming from random enthusiasts or people, not the actual article writer. Therefore, all that could really be included in the reception section (if it were to be added) would basically only be: "Since the opening of Leviathan, many people from the general public have applauded the ride for its smoothness and speed." You can't say something like this: "Jordan May is a grade 10 student coaster enthusiast who praised the ride for its smoothness and speed." People reading that are going to be saying to them selves, how the hell is Jordan May. Also, reviews from the GP are often biased as the park sometimes tells the people what to say just so the park doesn't end up having a review on the internet saying the coaster sucked. Sorry if this sounds like I'm on a rant, and no, my name is not Jordan May.--Dom497 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - fair point, there seems to be little coverage outside of coaster-blogs, and yes I read Jordan's fulsome praise for the ride. Bladeboy1889 (talk)
 * References - there's quite a few refs using blogs / forums etc. I can understand that some of the content is never going to be reported in the professional media but it would be good if an attempt could be made to fins alternatives to at least some of them.
 * I expected plenty of news articles to pop up about Leviathan when the coaster opened in which then I could replace some of the current references, but that didn't happen. The news articles are basically all reviews (more or less biased ones) from the GP and articles from when Leviathan was first announced. I've tried to find other sources but nothing comes up.--Dom497 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as above I was surprised by how little I could find. Are there any of the wide range of coaster sites regarded as reliable enough to be counted as good citations by the relevant WProjects? The one that I think definitely needs an alternative is 25 which is from a forum and these are frowned upon throughout WP.Bladeboy1889 (talk)
 * CW Mania is the most reliable coaster site for Canada's Wonderland. Why? Because CW Mania and Canada's Wonderland themselves (even the General Manger of the park!) have close ties with each other. CW has given information to CW Mania first about new things from the park, and from recent posts about Halloween Haunt 2012 indicate that the park has already told the site what will be new at the event this Fall (or at least gave them some really good clues). Also, the recent promoted Wing Coaster article has a Theme Park Review reference (which is a enthusiast site like CW Mania). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have narrowed it down to one forum and two blog posts. The single forum reference is just for the train colours (is this really needed in the article?). The two blog posts are both from NewsPlusNotes which I'd argue would be more reliable than a forum. The sources are used only for a broad idea of when groundwork started and when parts arrived. Themeparkgc   Talk  23:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - though the refs you have now may be viewed as on the verges of unreliability by some my view is they're reliable enough for the information they're providing, particularly as that info is unlikely ever to be written about in any other media. Bladeboy1889 (talk)
 * Images - the track layout and cars images are right on the borders of acceptable use - could alternatives not be found somewhere now the ride is open, especially of the cars?
 * If you go to Flickr, and search up pictures of Leviathan, firstly, none of the pictures have licenses that could be used on Wikipedia, and secondly, none of them resemble the amount of the detail the current picture of the cars does.--Dom497 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is we'd be stretching a point with the fair use policy. I think the track layout one would probably be OK but the cars one isn't going to cut it and should be changed or removed until such a time as there is an alternative. Bladeboy1889 (talk)
 * I found this image on Flickr. The image is currently under "All-Rights-Reserved" but luckily, the author is a member of CW Mania so I will send him a message asking him to change the license of the image to one that Wikipedia accepts (I am a member of CW Mania too). I will get back once they send a response.--Dom497 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because no appropriately licensed Flickr images exist, that doesn't mean one couldn't be created. I've removed the image from the article and tagged it for deletion. Themeparkgc   Talk  23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, the author sent me back a message and we are working on getting a good photo.--Dom497(talk) 00:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work - thanks. Bladeboy1889 (talk)

The above comments aside I think it's pretty close to GA - there's no edit wars, it's pretty NPOV and so on. If someone could have a look at the suggestions above we can get it signed off as GA. Will put on hold until then. Cheers Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the concerns have been addressed where possible I'll pass this now as there's no point waiting until a replacement image for the cars is found. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)