Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GateKeeper (roller coaster)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

GateKeeper (roller coaster) edit

GateKeeper (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets all the criteria to be a Featured Article. It has received a copy edit from User:Baffle gab1978 and was GA reviewed by User:The Rambling Man. This article was originally a draft in my user space months before it was announced and I have been contributing to it ever since. The roller coaster is very new so there are many sources available for the ride and most have been added. For only being open about 3 months, the article has just as much information that any other roller coaster article has. This is also my second FAC, my first being Millennium Force in which I learned a lot about the process. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—in full disclosure, I happen to have ridden this coaster back in June and enjoyed the experience. However, there are issues with the citations that need to be addressed.

  • There is no need to repeat wikilinks in the footnotes; The first time that a footnote cites the Sandusky Register is the only time that it needs to be linked. Ditto all other such links.
  • Some footnotes list items as the publisher when they should be the "work". Take footnote 6 for example. Crain's Detroit Business is the name of a publication published by Crain Communications. In footnote 2, Popular Science is also the name of a publication that is published by Bonnier Corporation. Please audit and correct these.
    • Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The publisher names aren't needed in those cases though... You didn't list publishers for other notable publications, so there's no need to list them for Popular Science or Crain's Detroit Business. (I only mentioned them as part of the point that the publication names aren't the publisher.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well which ones need them?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honestly, I don't think the publisher is needed for Popular Science, which is a pretty well-known magazine. Crain's Detroit Business probably doesn't need it either. Additionally, you've included the publisher (person) for the Los Angeles Times yet that's not equivalent to the other publishers listed here which are companies... Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as publication locations are normally listed for newspapers that omit their location in the title, we normally would list the publication location for a TV station. Please add the missing locations, which allows others to help judge the reliability of the sources. (The location for a student newspaper would be the university, not the city where the campus is located.)
  • Double check newspaper titles; the current name of the paper in Toledo, Ohio, is just The Blade. The name was changed in 1960. (Yes, they use toledoblade.com as their website address, but the paper is still just The Blade.)
  • If the original links still work, you should add |deadurl=no to the citation templates so that we aren't sending people to the archived copies. (I would also advise that you continue to pre-emptively archive as many of the rest of the news articles as possible.)
  • Footnote 57: the all caps should be reduced to match the case of the rest of the article title/headline per MOS:ALLCAPS.
  • Footnote 59 has the work (Mad Money) and the publisher (CNBC) backwards.
  • Footnote 61 as the TV station listed as a work, when the work would be a TV program they produce. The station itself is a publisher.
  • Also, there is a vast inconsistency between listing TV stations as "WKYC", but "WWJ-TV". Either they all are listed with the "-TV", or other appropriate, suffix, or they aren't. Honestly, they should have the appropriate suffix applied.
    • Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to double check... you should be citing these stations by their call letters consistently... and you aren't.
  • New issue introduced: I wouldn't link the locations in the footnotes. Judicious linking in footnotes steers readers to two things: the source itself (or an online convenience copy) or a wikipedia article to allow them to judge the credibility of the source. Linking to the name of a publisher, newspaper or a TV station does this second function, but a link to the location of publication doesn't. It's still valuable information to include, just not to link. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions on reliability of sources:

  • Footnote 4: what makes PointBuzz a reliable source? This looks like a fansite/blog to me. The suitability of this source will impact many other footnotes.
    • This has come up in the past, most notably here and here. In both cases, the decision was made that they were acceptable.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the next point below for the crux of this issue; the second FAC didn't address the reliability issue, and the first FAC didn't quite answer the questions posed below. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this article, PointBuzz doesn't really cite any content. Most of the PB footnotes are used to cite posters or pictures. Also, one of them is a Press Release. That is not written by PointBuzz, it is released by Cedar Fair/Cedar Point. PointBuzz is just the one that published it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then in that case, you have a bigger problem. I had looked at the first footnote to them that was an article published on their site. The posters, etc should not list them as the publisher because they are not. They are a re-publisher in those cases, yet you're attributing them as if they were involved in creating the content. I don't advise that people list Google Books when using convenience links to books hosted on that website; in this case, these are convenience links to a website hosting content originally published by others. (And that re-publishing may or may not be a copyright violation.) If you are citing posters, cite the poster, not the website. For the others, you still have the issue of whether or not Point Buzz meets our requirements for sourcing at the FA level.

            As a side note, I'm not in favor of listing PR Newsire as a publisher, since they're republishing press releases, not initiating publication. Press releases are truly self-published sources, so unless there is a specific person or department of the organization to attribute authorship, author = publisher. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

            • I have used a different cite template for the posters. What if we used Cite Interview for the videos with Rob Decker then didn't link it?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 5: what makes this a reliable source? (Also note, if the source is retained, it shouldn't normally be re-listed in the "External links" section of the article.)
    • I guess I'll assume you didn't watch the video. The information that is cited in the video came directly from Rob Decker, the park's VP of Planning & Design.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen that video, but like the source above, it's about the reputation of the publisher. Do they have a history of accuracy in their publications? Are they known for providing editorial oversight of the items they publish? We're naturally quite skeptical of videos published on YouTube for a number of reasons as well. As for PointBuzz, it's not quite enough to state they're quoted in other media; an assertion like that comes with a [citation needed] tag for me. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand being skeptical of items published on YouTube but this is an interview with Rob Decker. The information is coming straight from him. If you have an issue with that particular video, we can remove it because he says the same thing in another video that is used in the article. As for PointBuzz, see above.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the review of a candidate for Feature Article status; part of that is not just ensuring that articles use "reliable sources", as Wikipedia uses that term, but that they are using "high quality reliable sources". Inherent in that difference is evaluating the reputation of the publisher, not just the interview subject. You've used four videos on YouTube as sources, one of which produced by Cedar Point and three not. The reputation, quality and reliability of those other three creators are at issue. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess I don't understand why it matters who creates the videos. How can a video of something happening or a higher executive saying something not be reliable? It happened or it didn't. He said it or he didn't. I don't get why it matters who posted it. The information is there, it is coming from a reliable person. Here's a quote from User:Figureskatingfan, "I wonder if this might be an instance of comprehensiveness trumping reliability... However, this is a specialized and obscure topic, and there may not be the kind of sources you request available. IOW, they may be the most reliable sources out there. I've come to the conclusion that resorting to using industry webpages is necessary for some articles in order to maintain comprehensiveness, even in FAs--as long as the prose is high-quality." She made a very good point about comprehensiveness trumping reliability. I'm not trying to be a pain, I've just followed this article from day one. I wrote this article with all the sources available and I don't see the issue in the few YouTube or PointBuzz links that are used.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • See above for an idea about the Youtube interviews.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 17: the website is called Trademarkia, and it appears to be a wiki. Can we replace this with a better source for trademark data, perhaps something from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?
  • Footnote 24: this appears to be to be photos from a roller coaster fan posted online, which doesn't support the information in the article about the arrival date.

Imzadi 1979 → 22:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely removed the sentence.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Imzadi1979:, I just want to make sure you haven't forgotten about this review.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have much further to add here. We're going to have to agree to disagree on the reliability or suitability of videos and let the delegates make that final determination. FAs have to use "high quality reliable sources", but personally, I can't support some of the sources used here as meeting that standard, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "with the keyhole towers being the centerpiece." This is one of those pesky with ... -ing sentence structures that are often found to be 1a issues. Since this is in the lead, I'd recommend a minor rewrite to fix this.
  • History: "The memo also said the new coaster will have a 'Front Gate Statement'". Since the construction of the roller coaster is no longer a future event as "will" implies, that should be "would" instead.
  • Same goes for "A section of the coaster will go over the front entrance...". Not sure that "would" works here, but I'm sure another alternative can be found.
  • Period after "Not even a Jumbo Jet soars like this!" is overpunctuation because of the exclamation point in the quote. That takes care of the end-of-sentence punctuation.
  • Not sure the year is needed in "The auction ended on May 6, 2013." Based on the previous sentence, it's obvious to the reader that the auction had to end in 2013. I feel the same way about the year of the media day in the next sentence.
  • Construction: "an United States Senator from Ohio". "an" → "a".
  • Layout: "the first element of the coaster which similar to the dive drops on The Swarm at Thorpe Park and X-Flight at Six Flags Great America." Needs "is" after "which".
  • I'm a little bothered that the non-free image of the track layout says the purpose of use is "To show what the GateKeeper roller coaster at Cedar Point will look like once it is completed for 2013" when it is no longer uncompleted. Since it has been completed, other pictures could be taken, which calls into question whether the image is replaceable according to the rationale.
    • I have removed it, I'll find a new image when I get some time.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manufacturer: Space before the em dash needs removal.
  • Trains: Semi-colon before "a first for a roller coaster at Cedar Point" should be a regular old comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- This review has been open a month and had little activity for the past few weeks so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/GateKeeper_(roller_coaster)/archive1&oldid=1136097777"