Talk:Raging Bull (roller coaster)

Hyper-twister?

Someone needs to define "hyper-twister". A quick google search didn't lead to a definition... --Rehcsif 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Back row?

Who are these roller coaster experts who say the best ride is in back? There's no citation, and all I've ever heard one way or another seems to be rationalizing without any real scientific explanation behind it. Anyone got a link for these experts saying the back seat is best, or, even better, a reason why the back seat is best based on some well-grounded physics explanation? Stever Augustus (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raging Bull (roller coaster)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Plighting Engineerd (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Therguy10 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I am glad to be reviewing the article Raging Bull (roller coaster) that has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Thank you!

Therguy10 (talk)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is looking good and shouldn't be a major issue. However, I have some other concerns that I have left in the discussion section below	On hold
(b) (MoS)	Overall, the MoS looks pretty good. I'm impressed by the "trains" section formatting especially with that quote; it's a really nice touch. (The images also mesh nicely) I would advise you to fix the formatting of the GT Awards table at the bottom of the article (if possible) before I pass this area	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	This is well done. The descriptions of the coaster and its theme are written nicely. Everything you need to know about the ride is there, and I cannot find a major detail that is not. It is understandable for anyone	Pass
(b) (focused)	Little details can make a big difference. Fortunately, the article doesn't seem to sway off-topic. Like a road with stops along the way, nothing feels out-of-place to the point where you have to veer off of RB to understand it. The information is explained well and logical, and it all relates to RB	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes

Result

The article is mostly written in a way to where the author doesn't seem to have an opinion on this subject - that's good. My issue is with the lack of negative reviews. I wouldn't suggest quoting what someone said, but maybe in the reception section, a source or reference for a less-than positive review of the coaster is added. (It doesn't even have to be a review, even just a passing mention of some downsides could be useful) It also doesn't even have to be mentioned directly in the article, but something there would be nice. It's a great job besides that

Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
No sign of an edit war or any recent conflicts of interest with the article	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Everything looks good here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The captions seem appropriate. While a change could make them better, I don't think it would be enough to fail this category, especially considering that the current ones are good	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

The above is the template I will be using. Feel free to reply to comments as they are added. Therguy10 (talk)

Thanks so much for picking this up for review! To respond to your comment on 1b, thank you for the positive feedback. As for the format of the GTA table, I'm assuming you're referring to how it hangs off the side of the screen at many resolutions. Unfortunately, this is an issue that affects all roller coaster articles using this template with over a certain number of year entries. Modifying the template has been brought up in the past; additionally, last May, I attempted to restart the discussion as the problem has only been getting worse the more years the poll is held. It seems the discussion has stalled once more due to the lack of technical template expertise from those involved. Without modifying the template, sadly there is nothing that can be done to fix it as far as I am aware. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay cool; thanks for letting me know. That's kinda what I figured but was hoping wasn't the case. I noticed the same thing with Millennium Force, a Featured Article mind you, so it shouldn't be a big issue. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one to notice this issue.

I'll go ahead and pass 1b. Therguy10 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you're definitely not the only one – I also do want to look into the template (independently of this nomination) to see if I can maybe try to fix this for all the articles. Anyway, thanks so much! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, update: I fixed the template! It no longer hangs off the screen! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow! It fixed it for all of the coasters as far as I can see. Make sure to let Jonesey95, Ahecht, (if active) and especially GoneIn60 know; I'm sure they'd be glad to hear that. I'm very impressed. Therguy10 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Luckily the fix was pretty simple, and I've left a message on the template talk page (which the three you mentioned were involved in earlier). I'm glad I could fix this problem which had been here since... 2013! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah as soon as I sent that message I scrolled down on that conversation just a bit to see you had already done it.....whoops. (I was keeping a little eye on that sandbox and was laughing at the edit summaries you typed but I'm glad you got it to work) But yes that has been an issue as far as I can tell for some years now. You deserve something for it. :) Therguy10 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Awesome! When you sent that I was typing up a few concerns/recommendations relating to the article, so whenever you get a chance perhaps you could read them. (The style of writing in the article looks good; I haven't done an in-depth look at it yet, though)

There are a lot of double-hyperlinks in the article. Excluding the introduction, Hypercoaster, chain lift hill, ACE, and Apollo's Chariot are hyperlinked various times. Southwest Territory, Themed Land, and Bolliger & Mabillard could also make a case. While again, this isn't a huge issue, consider cutting back on some of those hyperlinks when applicable. ("Maxx Force" should probably have a hyperlink)

In the Ride Experience section, "chain lift hill" should be used instead of other wordings. It is referred to as chain lift hill throughout the article except for two different mentions that aren't the same in that section. Also in that same section, please consider using a different word than "traversing" for the second camelback hill. It's already used once just before this and I believe a better adjective could be used in its place. "which features trim brakes on it's uphill section" might need a new description. I'd also advise to make the final sentence in that section shorter, split up, and/or easier to read.

History: Instead of "The coaster would be manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard, designed by...." what about "Raging Bull would be manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard, designed by...."? This eliminates "the coaster" when the prior sentence ended in "coaster to date"; coaster is mentioned twice in a row.

That's my initial set of pure writing recommendations for the article. Again, it's formatted really well but just needs a little tidying up. I'll probably have some more later in the week when I review the sources.

I'll refrain from failing you now. I'll opt for "On Hold" instead and give you some time (up to a few days if needed) to make adjustments. Once they are done I'll continue my review. Thanks! Therguy10 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback! I have  Implemented all of your suggestions, aside from a few points on the double-hyperlink front. I have reduced the links to each term being linked once per major section based on the WP:DUPLINK guideline. I've removed some of the double links, but kept others as they are far enough away from the first instance, and aid in ensuring the reader understands more obscure terms. Additionally, and though this wasn't in your initial comment, I removed the link on 'United States' and split consecutive hyperlinks per other guidelines I saw on WP:LINK.

I really appreciate all of the in-depth feedback. Hopefully my edits are sufficient, and I look forward to further improving the article based on your comments! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Great! And yes, I should've referenced WP:DUPLINK when I said "when applicable" as that could've been confusing. (I also should've categorized it under Manual of Style and that's my fault)

I'm going to keep 1a on hold, because as previously stated I will likely have more feedback later in the week. I am going to cross out the writing currently there as well as continue my review; it's looking good thus far! Therguy10 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's alright, thanks again! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks a bunch for the feedback, I'll take a look for any negative reviews for the Reception section when I have time later today, and if you have any specific points on the captions, I'd be happy to take them to improve the article, even if it doesn't affect the GA nom. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear that; I know finding negative things about B&M Hypers isn't exactly easy. But if nothing stands out, again, even just an article that mentions some downsides will do fine. I don't think any of it should be quoted directly into the article unless it is a very common complaint and is notable. (as far as I know, an issue like that doesn't currently exist) I'll pass Neutrality once a solution is reached.

And as far as the captions go, I'm not too concerned about it. I can't put my finger on it but it feels like something could/should be changed. I'm looking into it to see what I can find and if it does become an issue I'll be sure to let you know! Therguy10 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I was unfortunately not able to get around to this tonight, but I'll make sure to keep looking for sources and will have this done by the end of tomorrow! Also I agree that there is no common complaint, so likely nothing worth quoting like you said. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries! I'm not in a bug hurry! Therguy10 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• big Therguy10 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding negative reviews from reliable sources. The most critical reviews are from enthusiasts, and only published in things like blogs and other self-published sources (violates WP:SPS). However, it's possible some would still be considered reliable under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Editorial_and_opinion_commentary, specifically, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." The best (and really only) negative review on a site that could possible qualify is this review on limitlesspark.com. Another review exists from CoasterCritic, a source that is considered reliable, but the review is very positive, with the most negative thing being "Raging Bull doesn’t quite reach the level of its sister coasters in New Jersey and Virginia, but it comes close." What do you think is the best way to move forward here?

Also, while searching for sources regarding this, I found another newspaper mentioning a few more details about the coaster's design/construction, which I've added to the article as well. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Plighting Engineerd Yeah we definitely can't add info from thoosies or blogs. I'm unsure if Limitless would qualify per WP:RS; the only mention I see of it elsewhere on WP is Reference 6 of Falcons Flight. I'd say that it is okay to add for now, but hope for a better source in the future. We can't expect a major news source to write an article about it, (why would they?) but I was hoping there would be a little more coverage. As far as CoasterCritic, you can add that reference into the article as depth, but I wouldn't use it for a "negative downside". I'm happy to see those extra details and it's making the article all the more better.

So as far as Neutrality I'll give you a pass---the article really is written in an non-bias way. All that's left for me is to review is 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d; it may take a little while.

Good work! Therguy10 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Great! I've added those two sources. I look forward to the feedback on 2a-d, and take all the time you need on it. Thanks for everything so far! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Plighting Engineerd An IP made an edit adding back one of Apollo's hyperlinks in the History section. I took out the reference in the Trains section in response for equal balance. If that one gets put back as well that's fine. I think that they are separate enough to where it wouldn't be a big deal; certainly not big enough to hold it from GA status. Just letting you know! Therguy10 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I took out the *hyperlink* in the Trains section, not the reference. Therguy10 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's fine. It complies with MoS no matter what, and I think it's just preference after that. It's possible that the current makes the most sense anyway, but like you said, it's an extremely minor thing. Plighting Engineerd (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Plighting Engineerd Can you make archives for the following references?

5, 19-23, 31, & 34-35

(14, 17, 32, & 37 may need to be archived in the future; isn't necessary now. 4 also shouldn't need to be archived unless the website gets redesigned and removes information) Therguy10 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done! Also what is the reason for those refs specifically being archived and not others?

P.S. I'd be happy to pick up Fury 325 for GA review if you want, returning the favor since you're doing such a good job here! Plighting Engineerd (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In a short, past trauma.

I feel like I've had experiences before, not entirely with Wikipedia, where news article links "randomly like to not work well", for a lack of better terms lol. Its always happened on news articles on mobile devices too; maybe it's just my imagination but they don't seem to work super well. Better safe than sorry, I guess.

And as far as Fury's GAN, I don't expect you to "return the favor" at all! Do it if you want, but don't just do it because I'm reviewing RB - I'm good with whatever! Therguy10 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)