Talk:Wooden Warrior/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one soon. λ NegativeMP1 20:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Really sorry for the wait, here you go. λ NegativeMP1 05:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

• You should be citing material later in the article than in the lead, additionally WP:CITELEAD exists.
  • Moved citations
• "Despite the coaster's small size, it has been well received by enthusiasts for its air time and thrilling experience." This sentence should be moved to the end of the lead paragraph to fall more in line with representing the article.
  • Moved
• "It was announced that the proposal would be submitted at the February meeting of the Town of Middlebury Planning & Zoning Commission" Sentence is missing a period.
  • Added
• "The ride also received high placements around its opening given its small size in the Golden Ticket Awards." Needs a source, also what? How do the two correlate?
  • Removed the claim, replaced it with a cited one about the ride's placement in the GTA's best new ride category
• "Note: Wooden Warrior has not charted in the Golden Ticket Awards since 2018." I think this is apparent, not necessary.
  • Removed
• I don't think the quote box is necessary and could just be paraphrased in the Reception section. Additionally what he said goes beyond this and there's more material to use.
  • Moved into reception section and expanded. As per the other information in the source, most of the quotes are from minor enthusiasts, and I don't want the reception section to rely too heavily on a primary source.
• Furthermore, I don't think describing someone as a famed something is encyclopedic writing. How are they famed? What are they known for?
  • Removed
• Spotchecking sources:
  • Ref #4 only partially passes verification in one of its uses. The source says "more than", not that it was constructed with exactly that many.
    • Fixed
  • Ref #16 passes verification, but as stated above, more of what Alvey said can be used.
    • Used more, as described earlier.

Decent amount of things I noticed, but it should be fixable. If I said something violates some sort of roller coaster manual of style or something, correct me because I know nothing about this field. Placing on hold anyway. λ NegativeMP1 05:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to address everything that you mentioned, please let me know if anything additional needs to be done. Thank you so much for the review, sorry for the issues, this is only my first GAN. ReedyTurnip (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, this looks good now. Passing, good job on your first GA. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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.