Jump to content

Talk:Son of Beast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSon of Beast has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 1, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Good article?

[edit]

I have been taking a look at this article and does anybody think this could pass a good article review? I feel it is one of the best roller coaster articles and has anything that's needed. --Astros4477 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not with the "needs additional citations for verification" box.--Nickvet419 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found and added several citations to the article and removed the box, what do you think now?--Astros4477 (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still got a long way to go before a GA nomination, in my opinion. There's too much original research (the Theme section is one example). Citations are still needed for world records, talk about Cedar Fair's marketing campaigns mimicking Son of Beast's, and more reliable references other than RCDB should be used more often (press/news releases, not blogs). The lead section could be cleaned up, shortened, and partially merged into a History section. There are a number of grammar and spelling errors as well. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GoneIn60 — the article's still a fair way off. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goneln60 and I have helped clean this article up. I have removed most original research and added better citations. I have done everything listed above. What do you guys think abt a GA nomination now?--Astros4477 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added six {{Citation needed}} tags to the article which would need to be resolved before going for GA. Also, there are still some primary sources within the article. Finally before the article is nominated I would advise it be listed here for a copy edit. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally had more time to work on this and made more changes. We may want to consider excluding the layout or ride experience section from roller coaster articles (like this one) that describes every turn, drop, and brake. The problem is still the appearance of original research. YouTube videos and/or blogs may not be considered reliable. Secondary sources are preferred. GoneIn60 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Behemoth (roller coaster) is a good article and it includes the ride experience. I'm not quite sure how you can cite the ride layout if you don't use a POV or in this case, a blog. Nothing really displays the layout of the coaster. --Astros4477 (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. It might be that the ride experience is not something that would likely be challenged. Let's just disregard that for now. We should still use caution and cite videos/blogs that are somewhat professional. The one cited for Son of Beast, for example, should probably be thrown out in favor of a better one. There are too many moments in which it's hard to make out exactly what's going on in the video. Also a shot of the riders probably isn't preferred either.
I have a few more changes to make before submitting it for review. Thanks. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everybody for the help, the article has come a long way in the past week. Goneln60, which POV do you think is better, one without loopbut a bit shaky or with loop but not shaky? Those are the best I could find. --Astros4477 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the ride experience describes where the loop used to exist, I'd say that the better video would be preferred. GoneIn60 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just listed it for a copy edit.--Astros4477 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The copy edit took place and we did a good job! There wasn't much to be done. Im going to nominate it for GA now.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is still one citation needed tag in the article which may need rectifying. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the second drop statement all together, I couldn't find anything on the second drop record.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a minor edit fixing things as I pointed out below to say something is closed indefinitely when the source clearly says possibly including in the title then you cannot expect this to be ready to a GA article with false information. Also with the fate of the ride still being unannounced still this article is not ready. I would suggest waiting until it is announced what the ride's fate is before GAing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.32 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fate doesn't have to be decided for GA. Three of us have spent time getting it ready and it was also copy edited with very little to fix. It is ready.--Astros4477 (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 season

[edit]

Google search or bing search Son of Beast 2012 and every article about the SOB being closed this season has been deleted and the source on here that is cited does not say anything about it either which could mean one of two things: the SOB will open this season or its fate has been decided and it is most likely to be demolished. Keep an eye out for one of the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.32 (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The website that was cited did say the future has not yet been determined. You now have to pay to read the article but it does say that they're still evaluating options.--Astros4477 (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read sources

[edit]

Title of source 2 clearly states "'Son Of Beast' To Remain Closed, Possibly For Good – Cincinnati News Story"⁠. Where does it say that the ride is closed indefinitely? Oh wait it doesn't it clearly states possibly for good that does not make it definite it means it may or may not be. Please read sources thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.32 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Indefinitely" does not mean what you think it means. To be closed indefinitely means there is no known point at which it will be reopened. If the source says that it may possibly be closed for good, then it is closed indefinitely. Eastshire (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Eastshire. Indefinitely is the opposite of definite. Taken from a dictionary, indefinite means:
1. not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.
2. not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future. —GoneIn60 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one grammatical uses indefinitely correctly then so I think so no one gets confused removal of the word is just easier cause who really goes looking on these talk pages and will see the definition posted? To me it sounds like a unanimous decision was made and the ride will not be reopened when in the case of the SOB that is not the case so I personally think indefinitely should not be used and what I posted sounds better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.33 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are the first person I've encountered who has difficulty with the definition of "indefinitely." It's not an issue of grammar but you personally not understanding the definition of the word. Saying that the ride closed, as you did in your edit, sounds permanent. Saying closed indefinitely sounds like there is still a possibility the ride will be reopened. Eastshire (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 18:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Quality of article is good.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Article complies with MoS.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    See comment section below. Issues fixed.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    See comment section below. Issues fixed.
    C. No original research:
    See comment section below. Issues fixed.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    All major aspects are covered about the topic.
    B. Focused:
    Article remains focused at all times.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias found.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Article is stable.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    All images are licensed correctly.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are provided where possible and captions are suitable.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Take out reference number 9, and replace it with this reference which better supports the paragraph in the Layout section of the article.
  • I known this will sound like I am trying to be a pain, but, "Despite the lack of the vertical loop, the coaster continued to hold the record as tallest and fastest wooden roller coaster in the world" and "As of the 2012 season, the ride remains closed, and no announcements have been made concerning the future of the roller coaster" need references even though its obvious that the statements are true. Its just that without any references, the statements are considered original research.

--Dom497 (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed both of these.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite the lack of the vertical loop, the coaster continued to hold the record as tallest and fastest wooden roller coaster in the world" still has no reference.--Dom497 (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

At the very end I would add a link about information about SOB's former coaster, The Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.129.100 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Astros4477 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Son of Beast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Son of Beast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Son of Beast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Son_of_Beast&oldid=1195604594"