Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Force/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Millennium Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured article candidates/Millennium Force/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Millennium Force/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because after working on this article for 14 months, I feel it is finally ready for FAC. It has come a long way since my first edit. It has gone through a GAN in that time and has been copyedited by User:Baffle gab1978 and User:Torchiest. It has also received a peer review from User:Figureskatingfan. Millennium Force is a very popular roller coaster and has made a major impact on the industry. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose– Sorry, but I have questions about a number of the sources used in the article. Seven references are to YouTube links, which are not usually reliable sources; in cases where they are linking to televisions shows; they may be copyvios if not uploaded by the station, meaning we shouldn't be linking to them. I'm also not sure about PointBuzz (many refs), MyCPGuide (ref 39, which doesn't have a publisher listed), Coaster-Net (ref 53), or Park Thoughts (ref 55). That's almost a quarter of the total references—too many for me to think that this passes FA standards in its current state. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to respond to this, if I may. I can't support or oppose this article because I reviewed it for GAC and I ended up substantially copy-editing it. I wonder if this might be an instance of comprehensiveness trumping reliability. I agree with you about the YouTube refs, and I warned Astros4477 that this might be an issue here at FAC. However, this is a specialized and obscure topic, and there may not be the kind of sources you request available. IOW, they may be the most reliable sources out there. I've come to the conclusion that resorting to using industry webpages is necessary for some articles in order to maintain comprehensiveness, even in FAs--as long as the prose is high-quality. I recognize, though, that consensus may determine that this article may simply not have the potential to be an FA, like many articles, which would be, I believe, unfortunate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants, I'll look for better sources for the TV episodes, that shouldn't be a problem. PointBuzz is indeed reliable as it as been mentioned and cited in several news articles. If you look at the sentence that MyCPGuide references, it references a photo which is acceptable. I'll look more into Coaster-Net and Park Thoughts.
- I'd like to respond to this, if I may. I can't support or oppose this article because I reviewed it for GAC and I ended up substantially copy-editing it. I wonder if this might be an instance of comprehensiveness trumping reliability. I agree with you about the YouTube refs, and I warned Astros4477 that this might be an issue here at FAC. However, this is a specialized and obscure topic, and there may not be the kind of sources you request available. IOW, they may be the most reliable sources out there. I've come to the conclusion that resorting to using industry webpages is necessary for some articles in order to maintain comprehensiveness, even in FAs--as long as the prose is high-quality. I recognize, though, that consensus may determine that this article may simply not have the potential to be an FA, like many articles, which would be, I believe, unfortunate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Christine, I just wanted to point out that you didn't review the article for GAC. That was done by User:Dom497. You still might not be able to support/oppose it but I just wanted to point out that you didn't review it for GAC.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed most of the ref issues. But others I couldn't always find something. I think they are fine being used; google search those titles and you'll see people talking about them. I think that's enough to support that it's not copyvio.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Duh, sorry, you're right of course. I did a PR! Which still makes me ineligible, I think. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points come to my mind. First, participating in a PR is not a disqualifier for offering an FAC opinion. If you're concerned about perception, then just say you offered a PR and I doubt anyone will discount your view that much. Second, for the YouTube links to TV episodes, you could just cite the episodes themselves. A few of the links appeared to be sourcing the fact that the ride was profiled on a particular TV show; for that purpose, a primary source is acceptable, with a cite to the point of the program that it appears in an episode reference. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the matter of PR, editors who engaged in a peer review will be familiar with the article, and therefore well placed to judge whether it is ready for FAC. I have done many peer reviews and have frequently supported the same articles here. I always mention that I have peer-reviewed, and provide a link to the actual review. Neither a peer reviewer nor a GA reviewer is prevented from supporting, if they feel that the article meets the criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points come to my mind. First, participating in a PR is not a disqualifier for offering an FAC opinion. If you're concerned about perception, then just say you offered a PR and I doubt anyone will discount your view that much. Second, for the YouTube links to TV episodes, you could just cite the episodes themselves. A few of the links appeared to be sourcing the fact that the ride was profiled on a particular TV show; for that purpose, a primary source is acceptable, with a cite to the point of the program that it appears in an episode reference. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Duh, sorry, you're right of course. I did a PR! Which still makes me ineligible, I think. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed most of the ref issues. But others I couldn't always find something. I think they are fine being used; google search those titles and you'll see people talking about them. I think that's enough to support that it's not copyvio.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused. What should I include in the Cite Episode?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See here: Template:Cite episode. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm confused about is if I should include the video URL in the cite. I don't see what's wrong with me citing the actually videos, whether that's on YouTube or the Travel Channel's website.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the video was uploaded by the network or another official source, it should be okay to leave it up. If not, the uploader is often violating the copyright of the network and we shouldn't link to the URL. I haven't looked at these videos and can't tell you what situation this falls under, but if in doubt it's best to leave the links out. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added cite episode for all the episodes and I have addressed or left comments about your other concerns.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not overly comfortable with the sourcing, but since some work has been done, and I don't know if I'll have more time to devote to this review, I'll strike the oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added cite episode for all the episodes and I have addressed or left comments about your other concerns.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the video was uploaded by the network or another official source, it should be okay to leave it up. If not, the uploader is often violating the copyright of the network and we shouldn't link to the URL. I haven't looked at these videos and can't tell you what situation this falls under, but if in doubt it's best to leave the links out. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Fixed-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Millennium_Force_(Cedar_Point)_06.JPG is sourced to a deleted file, as is File:Millennium_Force_(Cedar_Point)_08.jpg
- Is it possible to get the source back from when it was on English Wikipedia? The original english wikipedia image probably had the source but it wasn't transferred over to commons.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both deleted pages state they were self-created images by User:Coasterman1234. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sooo that means they're ok to have in the article right?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sooo that means they're ok to have in the article right?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both deleted pages state they were self-created images by User:Coasterman1234. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible to get the source back from when it was on English Wikipedia? The original english wikipedia image probably had the source but it wasn't transferred over to commons.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Millennium_Force_(Cedar_Point)_03.jpg: source does not appear to exist. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – With the recent changes that have been made, most notably the change in how the TV shows are cited, I can support this article to FA. I think that the sources are as reliable as they can be, and required for comprehensiveness. Good work! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comments -- After remaining open a month without approaching consensus to promote, and no commentary for two weeks, this review appears to have stalled and will be archived -- per FAC instructions, you can re-nominate this or another article once a minimum of two weeks has passed. Just to add my own observations: structurally the one-paragraph sections and subsections make it look choppy and under-developed, so I suggest either expanding these short sections or else combining some of them; reference-wise, it wasn't obvious to me that all the coaster and park records were cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.