Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Force/archive1

Millennium Force
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan on nominating it for FAC and it was suggested during the copy edit to have a peer review done.

Thanks,  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 04:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments


 * "When built in 2000" try "Once built in 2000" instead
 * --  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 19:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "it broke or helped to break ten world records" don't understand it, "broke or helped"?
 * Well for example, it didn't directly break the park records. Like for the most roller coaster track at a park, it didn't directly break it. It helped to break that record. Do you get what I'm saying?--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 19:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After the first sentence at the lead, I notice far too many "it" openings, try something different such as "the roller coaster" or its present name itself
 * --  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Cedar Point’s at $25 million" use a regular "'" mark per WP:MOS, it appears that one is curly
 * --  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:RELTIME is against the use of "today" or simlar words
 * --  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 19:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Further concerns to come later, but I did notice a "citation needed" tag in the history section, so that would certainly need to be addressed. TBrandley (what's up) 03:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asked, so I'm peer reviewing this article. I'll also copy-edit as I go, and when I see things that can't be easily fixed or things I have questions about, I'll put them here.

Figureskatingfan's comments

Lead
 * Once built in 2000, Millennium broke or helped to break ten world records; it was the first complete circuit roller coaster to exceed 300 feet (91 m) in height, it was briefly the tallest complete circuit roller coaster in the world and the fastest complete circuit roller coaster in the world, before being surpassed by Steel Dragon 2000 in August 2000. This sentence is too long; I recommend breaking it up and re-wording it to make it less awkward. I think "once built in 2000" is awkward.  When you say that the ride was "surpassed by Steel Dragon 2000", do you mean that it was both the tallest and fastest in the world before the SD was built?  I suggest changing it to: "After its completion in 2000, Millennium broke or helped to break ten world records, and was the first complete circuit roller coaster to exceed 300 feet (91 m) in height.  It was briefly..."
 * ✅--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the sentence about the park's investment belongs earlier in the paragraph, so I moved it.

History
 * The first rumors that a new record breaking roller coaster would be built at Cedar Point in 2000 began circulating in early 1998. Compound adjectives should be hyphenated; I went ahead and did it for you.  Do we need "in 2000"?  You say later on that the MF was completed in 2000.
 * I think so because that is the first mention of 2000 in the history section.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I get your point, but's still chronological without the first mention of 2000. Thanks for making the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rumors ranging from a 10 inversion roller coaster from Bolliger & Mabillard to a Arrow Dynamics MegaLooper surfaced. I think this is awkward, so I recommend combining it with the previous sentence. If so, this is how it would read: "The first rumors that a new record-breaking roller coaster would be built at Cedar Point, which included speculation about a 10 inversion roller coaster from Bolliger & Mabillard and a Arrow Dynamics MegaLooper, began circulating in early 1998."
 * ✅--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

More later, perhaps tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Construction and opening
 * 226 footers: As per WP:ORDINAL, it's best to spell out numbers when they start a sentence, or if possible, recast the sentence. In this case, I spelled them out because the source doesn't state who did the digging, so you can't recast.
 * I separated the first paragraph where the concepts (construction, completion) differed.
 * New 2nd paragraph: You use the words "about" and "approximately" too much; plus, there's no estimation in your sources, so I removed them. I moved ref1 after the next sentence because the information is there, not in ref15.  You should either explain or link (if possible) "pull-through", since few readers will understand it and it's explained in the source, anyway.
 * It was actually already explained, I reworded it.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. The rewording makes it clearer; I changed the wording slightly to make it flow better.


 * Ref19 says nothing about MF breaking ten records, that it was the first Giga coaster, and that other rides later surpassed it. Please make sure that your sources support your statements.
 * --  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seat belts: You should specify the "incident" that inspired the change in seat belts and the difficulties with them. You should also state that they instigated new weight requirements and why.
 * Well I left what happened out because it is explained in the Bizarro (Six Flags New England) and readers can look there for specifics. Should I still include it?--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Like most readers, I assumed that the blue link would take me to the Bizarro article, and not the specific instance. I suggest that you do that--link the entire article to "Bizarro".  Then you should do this: At the start of the 2004 season, Millennium Force's seat belts were modified because of an accident in May 2004 on the Bizarro roller coaster at Six Flags New England.  You should also add information about the new weight requirement, since it was also inspired by the Bizarro accident.


 * Ref25: The source only states that when the article was written (2012), they were in the middle of their three-year re-painting project, not that it was the first time it had been re-painted as you state.
 * Well there's not going to be a reliable source that states it was the first time. Riders are generally painted every 10 years so it makes sense that 2011 was the first time.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. But please realize that I, like most non-coaster fanatics (sorry, I'm too afraid of heights to think it's fun to put yourself through all that after standing in lines for two hours, but that's just me), won't know that.  The simplest solution is to state that it was re-painted over a three-year period of time, starting in 2011, since the source states that 2012 was the middle of a three-year re-painting project. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fast lane: You state that there were two times when the park developed the system to decrease wait times in lines: in 2000, a month after the ride opened (called "Ticket to Ride") and in 2012 ("Fast Lane"), after they had tested it at other parks. This brings up a Few question for me: Do either programs have anything to do with each other?  If not, you need to say so, and if you can't find any sources that back up a connection, then you shouldn't mention it.  How successful were both programs?  Again, if you can't find the information don't talk about it.  (It's unfortunate that ref20 doesn't include the second part of the newspaper article.)  IOW, you need to give us more information about the programs: why they were established, what people thought of them, and their effects--if possible.  The second phrase in the last sentence in this section breaks the tenses rule; I suggest either removing it or re-framing it when you expand information about it.
 * I never experienced "Ticket to Ride" but from what I've read on forums, it didn't last long because there was really no organization to it. The system could be easily cheated and they received many complaints. Their new system, however, has received much better reviews. Of course you're always going to get people complaining about how they're "cutting" in line and its "not fair" but that's just the way it goes. The systems relate to each other in that you're getting to the front of the line with a minimal wait, but the way it is done is different. Unfortunately, there's not going to be really any reliable sources on what there effects were/are.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 03:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have actually come across a source that talks about Ticket to Ride and I have added it to the article.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that; nice job. I liked how you described that here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ride experience
 * Queue: Ah, you repeat the same information as above. I think you should remove the queue info in the previous section and put it here.  Then you can expand it as I suggest.  None of your sources about paying to wait shorter times says anything about why "Ticket to Ride" was discontinued.
 * --  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Layout: It's too bad that this section isn't more interesting, since it's about a thrilling ride. I'm not sure what you can do about it, since it's stats and probably necessary.  (The YouTube clip, which is way cool, helps.)  Some OR went on in the writing of this section, hmm? ;)
 * I wish it could be more exciting but that's how the summaries go. I'm sure everybody would love to read "After reaching the top, the train drops at rapid speeds while your heart is racing and your hair is blowing in the wind." Of course, we know that's not possible. There may be a little OR here and there in that section... :)--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 03:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what the sources are for. And good for you; like I said, not my thing.  Guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Need to stop again; more later. I'll probably be able to finish tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have responded to all your comments.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Going on:
 * Station: The station features futuristic music. I see that ref41 links to YouTube, which is a clip of the music.  I just listened to the first part of the clip, but it seems that it doesn't characterize itself as "futuristic", which may be your characterization.  I know that it's obvious, but someone else may characterize the music in another way.  (I mean, I had Stevie Wonder playing when my husband called me earlier today, and he called it "noise", but what does he know?  One person's noise may be another person's greatness.)  Is there a source that describes it?  If so, you should include it, along with the YouTube clip.  If not, you need to remove the sentence, and perhaps put the clip in the "External links" section.

Track
 * Ref42 appears twice in this section; you don't need it, so I suggest that you just it once to support what the source states about the track. Does the source describe the three sizes?  It's unclear if what follows are descriptions of the shapes; if so, you may need to restate them to clarify.
 * You already talked about the re-painting; you don't need to repeat it again here.

Lighting
 * Ref43 seems to state that, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, they didn't end up using floodlights at the base. You should state it, if that's the case, simply by adding "Instead" to the beginning of the next sentence.

Inspiration: Is this a traditional section in articles about roller coasters? If not, how about changing the section title to "Influence", since it's about how the MF changed how they were built?

Done now. Nice job; thanks for following my suggestions. I think that it's a good candidate for FAC once you clean it up a bit. I suggest going through the refs meticulously, to make sure that they support what they're supposed to support. I have some concerns about how often you use Cedar Point and industry websites. Some reviewers at FAC make take offense of it, so you'll need to make a case for needing to use them to ensure comprehensiveness. I also suggest that you have at least one more editor give it a copy-edit. Let me know when you submit it to FAC. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)