Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Jet (Six Flags Great Adventure) and Jumbo Jet (Morey's Piers)

Jumbo Jet (Six Flags Great Adventure), Jumbo Jet (Morey's Piers)

 * ... that of the two roller coasters in New Jersey named "Jumbo Jet"—one closed without a single rider, and another was sold for two rail cars of ketchup to a Soviet amusement park (pictured)?
 * Reviewed: Skopje 2014

Created/expanded by IronGargoyle (talk), Dplcrnj (talk). Nominated by IronGargoyle (talk) at 04:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Both articles are written in nice prose, and meet the criteria for length and date of creation. I am unable to verify the references for the hook facts, because the sources are linked to Googlebooks without preview, but AGF that the refs support the cited facts. However, have the editors read these books, or are the facts gained from Google snippets? I have concerns about that form of sourcing, because too little info is presented to put the displayed sentence(s) in context.
 * That also raises a concern my concern about notability. I have tagged both articles with notability, because they do not appear to me to meet WP:GNG. Some of the online sources are refs to a database entry, but AFAICS none of the other refs amounts to substantial coverage per WP:GNG, which suggests that the articles should be merged to the existing articles on the amusements parks. Notability is not specifically listed in the eligibility criteria, so I don't know whether it is relevant to DYK. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png For the coaster formerly at Great Adventure, I have read both the book and newspaper article (and I'm not sure why you say you assume good faith and then don't). Both references are sufficient to meet WP:GNG as significant/independent reliable coverage. Roller Coaster DataBase has also always been considered to be reliable and significant independent coverage for the purposes of the roller coaster articles under the purview of the Roller Coaster WikiProject. The forums cited are not the most reliable source, but they are only cited to verify the presence of rumors, it follows the principles of WP:SELFSOURCE, is unrelated to the hook, and this questionable source is backed up with reliable information (an edited entry on www.rcdb.com). Although web sources often merit more scrutiny, I believe the Great Adventure history site (not the forums) is one of the more reliable sources of its kind, as it relies on edited information from a list of identified contributors. The other article (the coaster formerly at Morey's Piers) has had additional sources added as well (even though it also had multiple, independent and reliable sources providing detailed coverage). IronGargoyle (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong to claim that I said I AGFed and then didn't. I AGFed that the editors had found something in the book which verified the facts cited. I questioned whether this was through access to whole book, or just through snippet view.
 * I am sorry to hear that a WikiProject takes database entries as meeting the requirements of GNG. That's not the approach to GNG which I see used elsewhere.
 * And I am astonished to see this edit to Jumbo Jet (Morey's Piers). That's no way to address notability concerns.
 * IronGargoyle made sense of it by filling out the ref with details of a book ... but the book is about the amusement park as a whole. Is the existence of the book to be treated as conferring notability of every attraction in the park? The article Morey's Piers is not that big, and the roller coaster article should simply be merged to Morey's Piers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png I would like a new reviewer for these articles. BrownHairedGirl and I have a history of conflict. I would not have thought of reviewing one of her articles, but apparently she doesn't have the same perspective on the general principle of WP:INVOLVED as I do. That being said, let me quote directly from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So, what's the problem about a book on the amusement park if it covers the topic in depth (which my collaborator obviously thinks it does)? I think it's also incredibly disrespectful that she criticized a good faith edit by a new editor in adding a reference (who is still learning the ropes of the wiki system) by being "astonished" and saying that adding a reference (however badly formatted that reference may be) is "no way to address notability concerns." The rcdb.com issue is moot because both the articles already meet WP:GNG without it. While a footnote on WP:GNG notes that databases "may not" support notability, it does not say that databases "never" support notability. The entries in rcdb.com provide considerably more detailed information than a typical database. The length of the "parent article" (Morey's Piers) as a purported merge target is completely irrelevant, and is merely grasping at straws. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not much AGF there :( I have no recollection of any "history of conflict" between us, and I reviewed the articles as I found them, having selected them purely on the basis that they had gone for weeks without a review and were not on a technical topic. I had no idea whether or not the edit I linked was by a new editor; I looked at the contribution, not the contributor. If another reviewer wants to look at the articles, that's fine by me.
 * Where notability is not established, merger is one the solutions suggested in WP:PRESERVE. The length of the merge target is relevant because merger would not overwhelm the target article.
 * As to whether notability is met in this case, I stand by my view that the RCDB entry does not amount to "significant coverage". I am open to more info on the extent of coverage in the cited book, but remain concerned about the principle of using such a book as a reason to have standalone articles on multiple items within one amusement park.
 * Anyway, I'm happy to see what another reviewer thinks. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I did some checking, and found the conflict to which IronGargoyle refers. It was a disagreement in Aug-Oct 2007 about my tagging a series of articles with notability and other related tags, which IG bulk-reverted. (See IG's talk and the ANI thread).
 * Five years on, I had forgotten that IG was the editor who removed the notability tags in that episode, which did lead to the merger of dozens of stub articles on non-notable sub-topics related to Tolkein's works. I don't recall any further encounters with IG since then, and seems a bit prickly to treat a tagging dispute 5 years ago as evidence of WP:INVOLVEDment when reviewing a DYK submission.
 * Anyway, the purpose of this page is to review the articles nominated, and if IG wants to ABF, it's better that I recuse myself and allow the focus to return to the articles. I look forward to seeing what another editor makes of the articles under discussion here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted your tagging after you arbitrarily and capriciously added more than a hundred tags without regard to article quality or content. Afterwards, you threatened me and accused me of personal attacks. It's easy to claim that you "had forgotten" that incident, but your assumption of bad faith from the very beginning and hounding of my attempts to improve the articles makes that claim suspect at best. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You still ABF after 5 years :( Give it a rest, IG.
 * That taggining was neither arbitrary or capricious. I tagged those articles selectively, because out of a list stubs, those ones based had problems. You simply used admin tools to mass-revert and refused to discuss the substantive issues. Amusingly, when I looked back at that episode after IG's complaint I found a subsequent discussion on one of the articles concerned had its tags repeatedly removed by IG even after he said he'd give up on the topic ... yet as I noted on IG's talk earlier today, three years after I tagged it, AFD merged it into a broader article.
 * As to these two articles: I reviewed them without any recollection of any history of with their editors, and I did not ABF. There is a big difference between asking a question, and assuming bad faith.
 * Nor have I hounded you at all in relation to these articles. Please read WP:HOUND before making that sort of allegation ... and if you really believe that you are being hounded, take it to WP:ANI. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both articles are notable. The Morey's Pier coaster is purported to be one of the top coasters of the time period, was designed by an esteemed roller-coaster designer and was one of the last of its class built in New Jersey (no random ride by any means). The Great Adventure coaster was the first of its class in the state but never opened (I find that notable). IronGargoyle has included several reputable sources that give the rides more than a passing mention (IMHO over and beyond what some editors do on BLPs). I can see the full page in some of the books and the text supports the info in the articles. I think the topics can stand by themselves and are long enough (the parent pages are very large already). Regarding the dialog above, I would not expect an entire book to be written on a single roller coaster, so of course a mention of the ride in a book about amusement parks is acceptable. On the subject of using a database as a RS, WP Roller coaster has come to a consensus that the source is reliable (much like WP Horse racing, my home project, has decided what is acceptable, WP Medicine, Biography and so forth), and I respect their judgement. If you disagree BrownHairedGirl, you should take it up with the project (most projects rely on a database of some sort) but this is not a DYK issue. I'm also seeing incivility from both parties above, AGF means AGF, not assuming the writer may be lying or misconstruing content (I don't think IG has a reason to lie about having the full-version of the sources). For IG, also AGF that BHG is not out to get you, BHG seems to just want to make sure the DYK is the best it can be. I'll do a full review in a minute. Froggerlaura  ribbit 02:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Frogger, a few points:
 * I did not suggest or imply that IG was lying. I simply asked him whether he had the full version. I assume that whatever had been found was accurately reported in good faith, but it is entirely possible for a conscientious editor to accurately use the material they have found in Google snippets, but miss the wider context in which it was written, and that wider context may radically change the meaning of what is seen in the snippet.
 * The first 3 sentences of your comment above are about the importance of the topic, not about its notability. (see WP:N) for the distinction.
 * A WikiProject can decide whatever it likes about an RS, but a local consensus at that wikiproject is not the same as wider consensus. There are several databases which I use and consider reliable but I would never cite them as evidence of notability.
 * You write that "of course a mention of the ride in a book about amusement parks is acceptable". Where in WP:GNG do you get idea that a "mention" is sufficient?
 * Anyway, I said I'd recuse myself, so I won't oppose your judgment here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BHG, you are splitting hairs and it is getting quite frustrating working with you. If you are saying that importance of a subject has no bearing on its inherent notability I'm afraid we are at an impasse (yes I read WP:N, by that logic 80% of the articles on Wiki are not notable). It's a moot point anyway because it satisfies this: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." As for #1, you may have meant well but the delivery came off poorly and did sound like a personal attack. For #3, I'm not sure about the wider consensus (there is none here) about which you speak, it sounds like personal preference. As for #2, I don't know what to say, if you truly want to challenge mere mention vs. notability I suggest you ponder Fanny Imlay for a real notability mind-warp. I will not say anymore. Froggerlaura  ribbit 12:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BHG, you are splitting hairs and it is getting quite frustrating working with you. If you are saying that importance of a subject has no bearing on its inherent notability I'm afraid we are at an impasse (yes I read WP:N, by that logic 80% of the articles on Wiki are not notable). It's a moot point anyway because it satisfies this: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." As for #1, you may have meant well but the delivery came off poorly and did sound like a personal attack. For #3, I'm not sure about the wider consensus (there is none here) about which you speak, it sounds like personal preference. As for #2, I don't know what to say, if you truly want to challenge mere mention vs. notability I suggest you ponder Fanny Imlay for a real notability mind-warp. I will not say anymore. Froggerlaura  ribbit 12:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Length/date okay. Hook verified for both articles. No close paraphrasing or copyvio found with spotchecks in both articles. The image is from Flickr with an acceptable, free license. No POV problems that I can see, move stable for both. Froggerlaura  ribbit 03:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)