Talk:Coney Island Cyclone/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 14:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one as well, will post review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Lead

Historic is a bit of a WP:PEACOCK word.
Link Astroland and Luna Park?

Early history

We're starting afresh so to speak with the prose from the main body so Coney Island can be linked in the first sentence here.

Area decline

"were also cited as contributing factors", you haven't mentioned any factors prior to this so "were all cited as..." would probably be more suitable.
Link eminent domain, I don't think it's a widely known term and its article shows it's known as a lot of different things around the world.
"was higher than the city's proposed compensation", do we know what the city offered? Would offset well with the following sentence if they managed to raise the city's offer.
"The proposed demolition of the Cyclone were seen as", should that be was seen as?

Preservation

"The refurbishment was done by Great Coasters International", was done sounds a little clunky I think. Perhaps "carried out by" or something similar perhaps?

Current use

"Legally, the land is owned by NYC Parks.", is legally necessary here? I'm assuming there's no question marks over the ownership.
Link Wonder Wheel.

Layout

Should the picture caption read "Seen from the west?

Track

"and it takes about one minute and fifty seconds", to do what? I know what you're saying but include something like "to complete one cycle of the ride" or whatever the correct terminology would be.

Notable riders and rider records

"On August 18–22, 1977", should this be between said dates?

References

Not to be a pain in bringing it up again but, WP:ALLCAPS states to avoid shouting in ref titles.
There are a considerable amount of refs without accessdates.
Ref 67 needs a publisher.

Another good quality article epicgenius. A few points to look at listed above. Placed on hold for now. Kosack (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack, thanks for the review. I fixed all of these issues, except for "was higher than the city's proposed compensation", which wasn't in any of the reliable sources and is now removed. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, happy to promote this. Easily meets the GA criteria. Promoting. Kosack (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]