Jump to content

Talk:T Express/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. toobigtokale (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Toobigtokale (talk · contribs) 11:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Scrapping the template because I'm a luddite

  • Well written (Prose grammar etc)
I think concision and tone could be improved, i'll have a go at it later toobigtokale (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accurate and verifiable
  • Ref section
  • Inline to reliable
  • Original research
  • Copyvios
  • Broad
  • Major aspects
  • Focused
  • NPOV
  • Stable
  • Illustrated
I don't really love the second image; imo it's not very informative and the umbrellas are distracting. The kowiki version of the article has a pic in the infobox that I kinda like, have you seen it? It seems to check out in terms of copyright status and isn't a privacy violation (faces aren't discernible). I think a potential replacement, unless I'm missing something. If not that, then maybe we should search for a pic online that we can use. toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appropriately tagged
  • Captions
I think infobox image could benefit from a caption (at least dating it). toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also second image could have a better caption (maybe after potential replacement) toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall

Beginning review~ toobigtokale (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holding until comments are addressed and I take a few passes through it for prose and fact checks. Also question, no oxford comma intentional? Seems to be consistent on a quick glance toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toobigtokale: So far, I've changed the second image and added captions to the info box. I will read over the article and make prose/wording tweaks as needed. Also, for the Oxford commas I didn't intentionally avoid using them or anything, I don't usually use them much normally. Should I add them in the article? — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 21:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Oxford comma; it doesn't really matter, as long as it's consistently applied within an article. A slight majority of Americans use it, according to most polls I've seen, which may be a factor in favor of it.
I prefer it mostly because it's what I've been taught. As a plus, I like it because sometimes an item in a list can have an "and" in it, like the concept of "Milk and Honey". If this thing came last in a list, I think it could read as a split between "milk" and "honey", but it shouldn't be split toobigtokale (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale: I've added some oxford commas and made some general tweaks to the text and added citations and stuff. Also, quick question: For the "inline to reliable" section you didn't mention what specifically to improve but noted that it still needs work. How can I improve it so the article meets that criteria? — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 02:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was partially for me; I need to do a spot check of your sources to see that they check out. I'll do that now toobigtokale (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 02:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the Ride experience section, I think you'd need to plop source no.8 (the hankyoreh one) next to any claim that can be verified using that article. Also same goes for the youtube video. The POV video is apparently semi-reliable as long as it's conservatively described, but the claims about exact heights and degrees probably weren't derived from the video (unless you're really good at math) toobigtokale (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In reception, are there more recent stats than 2009? toobigtokale (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I formulated my thoughts on style. I think the writing could improve in concision and avoiding repetition. One issue is that subjects/nouns are repeated a number of times in close proximity. When I write, I actively avoid repeating certain words in adjacent sentences (unless necessary for clarity).
Example:
Within its first 6 months of opening, more than 1 million visitors rode T Express, and by the end of its first year of operations, more than 1,758,800 people have rode T Express. Within two years, T Express was able to get more than 3 million total riders, and 4,500 people rode the roller coaster each day.
"T Express" repeated 3 times in 2 adjacent sentences, "people" two times, etc.
I'd write this as:
It had more than one million riders within six months, 1,758,000 after its first year, and more than 3 million after two years, with 4,500 on average per day.
It's half as long, while communicating more or less the same info. I think key to that is relying on pronouns like "it" and taking advantage of parallel structure to let the reader infer things.
I notice this issue in many places in the current article; can you revise it? Let me know if any questions toobigtokale (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale: Sorry for the late reply - I am getting ready for school right now and I am extremely busy IRL. I've added Source #8 and #9 to the end of each of the claims in the ride experience description. I've also done some rephrasing for clarity - mostly replacing repeated instances of "T Express" with pronouns. As for the exact degrees, Source #8 explains some parts so I added those to some of the claims, and I've noticed that Reference #5 covers some of that as well. Meanwhile, I will work on finding statistics and such after 2009. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 17:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time! I did a second pass; will put comments below. toobigtokale (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

[edit]

The changes you made were great, improved the prose. I revised a good chunk of the article, will explain what I did and why I did it.

  • I pruned details in the lead. See MOS:LEADLENGTH; this is a short article, so we should try to only include the most interesting facts.
  • I grouped similar records/stats together. I also wrote the sentences to give the reader hints up front about what kinds of records are about to follow. If stats are groups in an arbitrary order, it becomes hard to understand.
    • Related, I separated the records out from stats. They're easier to parse this way, and info about the ride itself gets to stay in the description section where they're more relevant.
  • Spelled out small numbers; see MOS:NUMERAL.
  • Used a Template:As of. The link has a description of when/why to use it.

With the above, I think prose is passable now, I'll do some copyedits again later. I also fact checked a good amount of the sources and they seem fine.

Requests

[edit]
  • More recent stats on ridership and impact on park sales if possible
 Doing... — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 04:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done #prodraxis connect 15:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly did Rocky Mountain Construction do? The article currently says "with the assistance of", but I think I wrote that phrasing. Should clarify that if possible.
 Done The RMC stuff was dubious anyway (could not verify the claim), so I just removed it. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her)
  • Need a source on the designer; I see it's in the infobox. Instead of putting the ref in the infobox, recommend writing out the info in the history section.
 Done I wrote it in the history section and used RCDB as a ref for that. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 03:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done #prodraxis connect 15:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Sorry for the late response - like I said, school's been taking up so much of my time.[reply]
Just a heads up that refs should generally go after punctuation (see WP:CITEFOOT). toobigtokale (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply here. Once you finish requests, I'll cross them off the above list. toobigtokale (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third pass

[edit]

Gave it a quick once over. Some notes:

  • Can you state which country Intamin and Ing.-Buro are from? Like "the german company x" or "the swiss company y"

 Done #prodraxis connect 23:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, I didn't know Intamin was swiss, was just a lucky guess lol. I guess they're founded in Switzerland and based in Liechtenstein, although they're commonly referred to as a swiss company toobigtokale (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put a cit need next to the ride seating capacity per hour; i couldn't find in the link where it says that on a quick glance. Did you derive it based on something? If derived, I think because the derivation is not immediately obvious, may need to either find a source or state out the simple arithmetic on how it's derived.

 Done Intamin's website stated that. #prodraxis connect 02:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Imo the stopping incidents need a bit more detail. I think readers would want to know how long the ride was stopped, whether there was people on it, if anyone was injured, and how long it took for the ride to get back up and running. If the cases are all pretty similar, we don't necessarily need a full writeup on each one, but just more details. Up to your judgement.

 Done Added more details. All of the cases were pretty similar so I didn't go into exhaustive detail though. #prodraxis connect 02:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't looked at the article, but I think the brazil soccer team bit isn't particularly interesting and could be removed, unless they did something particularly notable on it.

 Done #prodraxis connect 13:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the other hand, it appearing in the metaverse is interesting; could use a few more sentences.

 Doing... #prodraxis connect 13:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done #prodraxis connect 13:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I'm guessing no more recent stats on riders and impact on park attendance than 2011, yeah?

Yeah, I could not find more recent stats. #prodraxis connect 02:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now, getting close I think. toobigtokale (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toobigtokale.... looks like the review's stalled for a while. Are we still interested in continuing this? I've added a couple of stuff from a source I found on the Wikipedia Library. #prodraxis connect 01:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't realize it was done. Let me look toobigtokale (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok last thing then I think we're done. Can you go through the references and make sure the fields are all appropriately filled out?
In particular:
  • Make sure author names are filled out (if Hangul names are used, split it up into last/first names and put them in the fields)
  • If the article title is in Korean, translate the title and put it under the trans-title param.
  • There's an error in ref #25, and the last name field is incorrectly filled out in it.
And please feel free to @ me when you're done; I didn't get a notif.
toobigtokale (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale:  Done That's a lot of citation cleanup... #prodraxis connect 22:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, passed :) toobigtokale (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo, my first GA :D Thanks for collaborating in this review...... who knows, I might write other South Korean rollercoaster GAs in the future. #prodraxis connect 02:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the bot: Pass #prodraxis connect 02:16, 5 September 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:T_Express/GA1&oldid=1173920113"