Jump to content

Talk:Iron Gwazi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleIron Gwazi is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 25, 2023.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2022Good article nomineeListed
March 2, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 12, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that it took seven years for Gwazi, a pair of dueling wooden roller coasters, to be refurbished into the hybrid roller coaster Iron Gwazi?
Current status: Featured article

Untitled

[edit]

Has anybody ridden Gwazi? The tracks are nearly mirror-images of each other. Neither have any "special" element. Timetrial3141592 02:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Iron Gwazi

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unanimous consensus to merge, but since Gwazi's editing history needs to be preserved and Iron Gwazi is already a stub article, this page move will need to be formally requested at this point using the WP:RM process. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gwazi → redirect to Iron Gwazi

Currently existing article on the matter, insufficient to be itself as of now if only in construction still. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - should we merge this now? This seems to be unanimous in favor of merging. epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, yes it can be merged at this point. We should close this discussion citing WP:SNOWBALL. The precedent established in other articles makes it extremely unlikely this one would be an exception. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, this could be seen as a potentially controversial move and should be formally requested using the Requested Move process. I'll get that started now so we can get this moving quickly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 September 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Consensus established here and in previous discussion; already moved by admin. (non-admin closure) GoneIn60 (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gwazi → Iron Gwazi – Per the discussion in the previous section with unanimous support, Gwazi needs to be moved to Iron Gwazi, which is already a stub article with an editing history. Gwazi's editing history must be preserved in the process, so I've closed the discussion above and opened a formal requested move. After the move has been made, we can integrate recent changes at Iron Gwazi into the article (as an extra precaution, I've made a copy of the article in my sandbox). GoneIn60 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quote close paraphrasing

[edit]

@JlACEer: I did check...as I said in short in the edit summary, the exact phrasing of what was previously present (and somewhat is) appears to be directly paraphrased without quotation or a citation from Coaster 101 and/or the Tampa Bay Business Journal. Quote, ...fabled creature with the head of a tiger and the body of a lion", unquote, appears in both articles and should thus either be re-worded or removed. In my research, there have been several earlier newspapers that describe the roller coaster differently, so I don't know why the recent descriptors from publishers have to be the correct one? Unless you know otherwise and can provide sources, Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You listed body first, which is not the way it is quoted.—JlACEer (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hence it was re-worded to avoid close paraphrasing as it seemingly appears copied and pasted and there was no source to begin with. That doesn't address my other concerns, nor the "majority of sources" that was stated. :/ Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source was Busch Gardens in 1999. It's a made up fable, it does not need to be paraphrased nor does it need be in quotes. Honestly, I have no idea what your issue is.—JlACEer (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to provide the source so we can include it in the article? The problem is it seems copied and pasted from somewhere without proper attribution, and anything like a complete statement found elsewhere is likely a copyvio. Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RCDB—JlACEer (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you... Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Iron Gwazi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 05:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I will be conducting a good article review of this article. I aim to get my part of the review done within the next few days. Steelkamp (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

[edit]

Well written

[edit]
  • for a resort to rival Florida amusement parks – It's not clear to me what Florida amusement parks is? Is this a specific amusement park or in general. Would it make more sense to say for a resort to rival other Florida amusement parks? Steelkamp (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The roller coaster was touted as being the steepest and fastest hybrid roller coaster, as well as the tallest hybrid roller coaster in North America. Should this be The roller coaster was touted as being the steepest, fastest and tallest hybrid roller coaster in North America. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction on the project site went vertical on August 10, 2019. This strikes me as unencyclopedic language. Seems like something that the news source wrote to get people reading. Should be reworded. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says it was planned to open in Spring 2021. But then it says that the delay was announced on August 23, 2021. There must have been a delay before that seeing as that date is after spring 2021. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ❕ It was anticipated but I get the confusion. Spring 2021 was not a hard opening date but a time frame that drew into the summer and then came the second delay. Can be changed or omitted as there was not much reliable source coverage in the months to reflect the delay delay. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individual wooden tracks reached a length of 3,508 ft or 1,069 m or 7,000 feet (2,100 m) when combined. – Why not just say 7,016 feet, or even leave the combined amount out entirely? Steelkamp (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gwazi was touted for having the first six fly-bys on a dueling roller coaster. This is confusing to be. Change to Gwazi was touted for being the first dueling roller coast with six fly-bys. Steelkamp (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

[edit]
  • ❔ Changed to The idea for building a wooden roller coaster was selected as opposed to steel because of the growing preference in antiquated attractions. The park also used the selection to stand out from other Florida theme parks use in modern ride technology. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • park officials hinted that there were future construction plans involving Gwazi slated for 2020. I'm not sure it's correct to say they "hinted" when it seems that they outright stated that there would be construction. Steelkamp (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

[edit]
  • ❕ This might be confusing to those not familiar with Rocky Mountain Construction roller coaster transformations. In Gwazi's case, the two original wooden roller coaster structures were not fully demolished but were incorporated into the singular steel roller coaster. This means that the wooden support structures were not completely dismantled for both original roller coasters, only partially. Partial demolition and construction simultaneously started in late 2018 per the Tampa Bay Bussiness Journal. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

Stable

[edit]

Illustrated, if possible

[edit]

General

[edit]

@Steelkamp: I wanted to check-in and see how you are doing since it has been about a week. No rush! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get this done by this Friday. Steelkamp (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good, take your time. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll finish the rest tomorrow, then place it on hold. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will get into fixing in the meantime! Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done, placing this on hold. Steelkamp (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I should have made all the corrections listed or addressed comments to clarify. Anything else? Adog (Talk・Cont) 12:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's it. Good job Steelkamp (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your time and patience! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Adog (talk). Self-nominated at 22:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I think the general public may find both hooks interesting. However, speaking as a fan of roller coasters and particularly as a fan of RMCs, this doesn't strike me as particularly unique, since RMC did something similar for Twisted Colossus; it may be more effective if this was one of a few such conversions in the world. These other facts, on the other hand, are also interesting:
    • It took seven years to convert Gwazi into Iron Gwazi
    • Gwazi was Florida's first dueling wooden roller coaster
  • If you wish, perhaps you can propose additional hooks and I can review these hooks as well. Otherwise, I can just approve ALT0 and ALT1.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Adog: Very nice work on this article - it makes me look forward to riding Iron Gwazi even more. Since this is your fifth DYK nomination, you do not have to perform a QPQ. I only had one concern about this nomination, but it's relatively minor. Epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Ah, it is good to see you around. I saw you promote Coney Island a while back, a monumental task. I appreciate the comments, I'll still review one anyhow, and yes it is definitely worth a ride (and several more after). Anywho, concerning the actual review, I was thinking of your first suggestion but left it off initially. Some more could be included:
I do not have a preference to any hook, whichever seems most interesting to you or others. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these hooks look good to me, though I prefer ALT2 and ALT3. Everything is good to go now. (On a side note, yeah, Coney Island was a really difficult article to rewrite, but I'm glad you liked it. And I'm looking forward to several rides on Iron Gwazi in the near future...) Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 2

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2023 and 29 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gcgxrvtj (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Applegirl1234.

— Assignment last updated by Applegirl1234 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

Hey everyone,

I have 2 things I would like to edit. One of them is the inversion count. Busch Gardens markets Gwazi as having 3 inversions and in the overbank curve after the barrel down drop, you are at an angle of about 120 degrees which is inverted. Another thing I would like to edit is the layout section. I feel as though its very vague and doesn't represent the ride fully. Gcgxrvtj (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gcgxrvtj: I admire your eye for the article's material. Unfortunately, I would advise against these additions.
  • According to the Roller Coaster DataBase (RCDB), the element featured on Iron Gwazi is an overbanked curve. Generally, an overbank becomes an inversion once it exceeds 135 degrees, where riders are more inverted than sideways (a helpful infographic). This is, more-or-less, the best we have on what becomes an inversion because manufacturers have introduced nuanced elements to their roller coasters in recent years that are not as cut and dry as the vertical loops of ye-olde days. While, yes, Busch Gardens does officially state as a fact that Iron Gwazi has 3 inversions, there has been no official statement on the banked angle of this element or further synthesis produced by reliable secondary sources that could confirm this interpretation. We often rely on indepdent sources to clarify if a statement is true. From what we have gathered, those who do provide the interpretation have cited this element as an overbanked curve, not an inversion (e.g. American Coaster Enthusiasts, Theme Park Insider). Although RCDB is not the definitive source of all roller coaster information, it is probably the best reliable database for statistical information on roller coasters (see further discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Reliable source discussion).
  • As for the layout, I would not add additional information for two main reasons: conciseness and lack of reliable sources. On the books (or our webpages), we strive to have articles that are easy to understand for readers of all knowledge ranges, that are "straightforward, succinct, easily understood language and structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts". Too much detail of the ride's layout generally would have little interest to a broader audience, and likely only for individuals who really like roller coasters. Unless a reliable secondary source has information about the theme, station, details of the ride experience, etc. we tend to leave them off the Wiki. Though, I know of specific information that might be pertinent to the article, such as steel supports being used to hold up parts of the wooden structure, there have not been published reliable sources that would verify my observation, and I, therefore, cannot include such information.
I state such not to discourage you from editing or researching this topic further, but to explain why the article's information is currently the way it is. I do hope this helps a bit. If you would like, feel free to drop by our WikiProject, as we have more resources that may assist you in your editing journey. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking time to reply.
I understand concerning the number of inversions
I have to disagree with you regarding the amount of detail in the layout section. Providing a detailed layout section will allow people who are curious about the sensations and forces to "feel" the ride for themselves. Also, if people are on Wikipedia researching this ride, the layout section is crucial in informing unknowing people about the elements present. Currently, after the overbank turn, the true layout is extremely hard to picture due to the use of extremely vague phrases like " a series of banked turns" and "small hill." Someone who truly wants to learn more about Gwazi will have a very hard time in understanding the elements included. I have ridden Gwazi myself various times and can also comment on the ride experience based off my own experiences (I'm even going to Busch Gardens again next Sunday and can . I would like to reassure you that if I were to edit the layout section, I would make sure to keep it as concise as possible while still painting a vivid description of the ride.
Thank you for your consideration Gcgxrvtj (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gcgxrvtj: In that case I think that may suffice, added with reliable sources.
As a guide, we usually keep the layout to simple descriptions based on what the roller coaster train traverses (e.g. simple turns, climbs, descent, banking). Generally, the reliable source is the official POV that is non-copyrighted, but the APARKS WikiProject may consider to depreciate this source in the future (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#YouTube). The reasoning being, simple descriptions can be verified by anyone with any knowledge if they watch a video or go on the ride. The train will always follow its exact layout of banking left, dipping, or climbing. Anything more in detail, such as statistics, specific elements, or surrounding environment would need reliable sources that provide commentary for the observations (RCDB, a review from a newspaper, a reliable enthusiast news page) (see WP:PRIMARY #2 & #3). These descriptors are what individuals not so familiar with the ride might not know, so a source that details this information is important.
I would advise against descriptors about sensations or forces riders feel as those can vary between ride experiences, and are generally considered original research as sensation is subjective, not an objective detail of the ride's layout.
Feel free to take a crack at it! Ride experience sections are my tricky spot to write. I have seen some ride experience sections written like a two-five paragraph essay (please, no), which is always my concern haha. For reference on how ride sections are written, you may consider looking at APARKS Good Articles or Featured Articles. My forte is mainly history on these topics, but we do implore members to go out and experience the parks and rides to better understand the topic (a personal favorite roller coaster). If you would like additional help, feel free to reach out to any of our APARKS members. We'd be happy to help! Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome,
Glad I can contribute to my Favorite roller coaster's wiki page. Also, no worries about the forces. Forces and sensations vary even from morning to night so I really just wanna clean it up and avoid general sayings like " it goes through some banks and hills." Gcgxrvtj (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I just submitted my edits for the Ride experience. Thank you for letting me take part in this! Please let me know if there's anything else you may like me to edit. Gcgxrvtj (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gcgxrvtj: No need for thanks, Wikipedia is open to everyone. I hope I was more guiding than dictating. If you have any interest in helping improve our project feel free to continue editing and maybe joining WP:APARKS, as we are always seeking new members. If not, we hope you continue on with your successful education. Happy editing! Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iron_Gwazi&oldid=1195605129"