Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rougarou (roller coaster)/1

Rougarou (roller coaster)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Rougarou_(roller_coaster)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing here is terrible, a definite compromise to the article's quality:


 * 1) What makes Coaster-net (source 1) a RS?
 * 2) What makes Ultimate Roller Coaster (source 5) a RS?
 * 3) Surely there is a better source than YouTube (albeit Cedar Point's official one) to replace sources 7 and 8.
 * 4) What makes The Observer "Squashing the Mantis" (source 9) a RS?
 * 5) What makes Roller Coaster Database (sources 14, 20, 21) a RS?
 * 6) What makes American Coasters (source 15) a RS?
 * 7) What makes Top Coasters (source 16) a RS?
 * 8) What makes The Coaster Critic (source 17) a RS?
 * 9) Source 18 (Ohio.com) is dead
 * 10) Most of the citations are not fully fleshed out and only give the title without the work, author, or access date.

This article was promoted in 2012 and clearly shows it due to a lack of maintenance, poor source choices, and linkrot.


 * I'm probably not going to have enough time in the near future to fully review this, but a recent discussion at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 5 should reflect the WikiProject's stance on some of the sources in question that you've listed above. RCDB is generally reliable for statistical data and dates, and it has survived multiple GA and FA promotions. The Coaster Critic has been recognized as a subject matter expert by reputable sources such as the Washington Post and Fox News, but the others at first glance are probably suspect and/or worth further discussion. It's also worth noting that the article was promoted when it was Mantis prior to being renamed Rougarou, so it may need some serious work to retain GA status. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)