Talk:Project 305/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Though this section has passed, please see last comment.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See comment section below for items to improve/fix.--Dom497 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See comment section below for items to improve/fix.--Dom497 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See comment section below for items to improve/fix.--Dom497 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Ref 16: The letters load, but not what they mean which is a problem. Perhaps another ref could be found?
 * Did you mean a different ref? Ref 16 is the POV.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 15 is the POV. 16 is titled "Track Layout" and does not load completely.--Dom497 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Astros4477 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "a short message is played, "Gentleman, start your engines!" is repeated in the layout at trains and theme sections. This quote only needs to be mentioned once.
 * --Astros4477 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "In early July 2010, the ride received a unique new restraint design." Why did it receive new unique restraints?
 * Because most of the Intamin restraints like that aren't padded.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Some rides that used typical Intamin over-the-shoulder restraints include Maverick at Cedar Point and Storm Runner at Hersheypark." Source?
 * ✅--Astros4477 (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Intimidator 305 features yellow supports with blaze red track." Blaze red track? Unless you can find a source to support it, just say red.
 * ✅--Astros4477 (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "The massive lift-hill structure..." Does not represent a neutral point of view.\
 * --Astros4477 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "...which allows for longer spans with fewer supports, particularly on crest curves." Without a source, this is considered Original Research.
 * I have seen this in a news article or video before. I'll leave it up while you add more comments and I'll see if I can find it.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the statement.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref 5 isn't working.
 * --Astros4477 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "...former land occupied by the Monorail." What monorail (don't need to go into too much detail)
 * There was a Wild Animal Safari Monorail that closed in 1993.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I know that. But why not include it in the article? In my opinion, just using the word Monorail is too general.--Dom497 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed the wording of the sentence and added a link to the appropriate section in the main article. See . Themeparkgc   Talk  00:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref 18 is a bit mixed up in terms of its name and publisher.
 * --Astros4477 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Intimidator 305 won the Golden Ticket Award for "Best New Roller Coaster in 2010" by Amusement Today" could be put into a table to go with the rest of the section.
 * I don't like having a table for one entry. I think it looks bad. Tables should be meant for multiple entries and I just don't see the point in having a table for one entry. And I know there's only one entry in the Best roller coaster poll table but that'll be expanded when the 2011 rankings come out.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The article will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have fixed everything.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not quite. The part about how fewer supports are used still doesn't have a ref. Also, take a look at my comment about the Monorail (that comment is just my opinion).--Dom497 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the statement on the track and info on the monorail was added.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)