Template:Did you know nominations/Skyrush

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Skyrush

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 16:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC).

  • The article is new enough (promoted to GA on October 21). Article meets length and sourcing requirements with no copyright violations or close paraphrasing. The hook is interesting and supported by the source, but the details about "fake Web pages, hidden messages, and foreign languages" are not included in the article - that phrasing is also lifted directly from [1], which isn't ideal. Additionally, it's misleading to call the roller coaster "new" - it opened in 2012 - and with Hersheypark at the front of the hook and Skyrush at the end, it sounds like a hook about Hersheypark rather than Skyrush (the actual DYK topic). I suggest proposing a modified hook.
    This is not really an issue with the DYK rules, but this article was brought to GA status by Epicgenius - the user who nominated it for DYK has not made any edits to the article. As the primary contributor to the article, I think Epicgenius should be notified in case he has any objections to this article running on DYK. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Spicy: How about Alt1 "... that the roller coaster Skyrush had an advertising campaign that prompted extensive discussion on social media?". Also about notifying Epicgenius, he actually gave me a thanks for creating this nomination so i assume he doesn't mind. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'd be fine with that. To clarify, I told Spicy off-wiki that I did not have any problem with this nomination. I was trying to come up with an alt or two, which is why I didn't respond until now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. To be honest I'm not sure the new hook is all that interesting, but I'll pass this on for a second opinion from another reviewer. Spicy (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    How about these?
    • ALT2: ... that after the Skyrush roller coaster was completed, it was featured on Good Morning America?
    • ALT3: ... that you can "Ride the Edge" of Skyrush's trains?
    • ALT4: ... that it takes about five hours to inspect Skyrush every morning? Epicgenius (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, speaking as a non-roller coaster fan, I did find the original hook interesting, probably even moreso than ALTs 2-4 (ALT1 is too vague). However, the original hook might be a tad too long, plus the subject is at the end rather than the start (which I don't think works out in this case). I think it may be better to focus on just the fake Web pages and foreign languages since the hidden messages thing seems less interesting than the other two. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: Are you formally reviewing this nomination? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    No, I was only commenting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    So Alt0a "... that Skyrush had an advertising campaign with fake web pages and foreign languages to promote it?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The article was new enough at time of nomination (DYK nomination on 23 October, having passed GAN on 21 October and has not appeared on the Main Page) and is long enough (8517 characters of readable prose and is not a stub). I am approving ALT0a, ALT3, and ALT4. These three are mentioned in the article and are interesting to a broad audience, though there are citation issues for ALT0a and ALT3; see below. ALT0 is inferior to ALT0a for the reasons already stated; ALT1 is a little too subjective and is not as interesting for me, given that many things nowadays get "extensive discussion on social media"; ALT2 isn't as interesting to a broad audience given it requires knowledge of Good Morning America and it isn't implausible that a rollercoaster would be covered. A quid pro quo was done. With regards to core content policies such as copyright and BLP, I could not detect any copyright violations or BLP violations. However, there are significant verifiability issues with the article. I'll go through them as the article flows:
    • Lead: There is no citation for "second tallest and second fastest roller coaster at Hersheypark" in the lead, nor is that statement mentioned elsewhere in the article.
      • I removed the claim that Skyrush is the second tallest and second fastest roller coaster at Hersheypark. It was in the article before I started working on it. Not that being second tallest or second fastest is noteworthy, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) in the lead is inconsistent with 26 feet per second (480 m/min) in the "Characteristics" section, by 3.2 kilometres per hour (2.0 mph).
      • Fixed (this was a minor issue). Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • There is no citation for the fact that Skyrush wasn't listed in 2016 and 2020 in the "Awards" section.
      • I have fixed this now, adding citations for the 2016 awards. Roller coasters did not receive Golden Ticket Awards in 2020; I cited that too, although it's not as good of a source as I'd have liked. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • History: "Intamin convinced Hersheypark officials" is not supported by the citation; the source makes it seem like Intamin had the choice of two locations and made a decision.
      • I have attempted to rephrase this for clarity. The source says "When we sent the proposals to Intamin (the company that built Skyrush) they decided they liked this site because of the interaction with the creek and the Comet." The source doesn't mention how many other locations were under consideration. I think this can be interpreted to mean that Intamin's decision influenced Hersheypark officials to select the site, because Hersheypark officials might have otherwise selected another site if Intamin didn't chime in. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • "Project 2012" is mentioned multiple times (including in the lead), but is not mentioned in the sources. The phrase used in the sources was "Attraction 2012".
      • I have fixed "Project 2012", which was in the article beforehand. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • "'fake Web pages, hidden messages, foreign languages and symbolism'" is not in that source; please see the DYK nomination above for the correct one.
      • It was in another citation (also a minor issue). I have fixed it now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • "pieces of steel track" (emphasis mine) seems to be original research, given that the source does not mention track.
      • The image in the source does show track, but I have changed this anyway - also a minor issue. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The trademark application is not mentioned to have been in July 2011.
      • The source, published in July 2011, says The new attraction may be called Skyrush, according to a trademark application filed by Hershey Entertainment. It was trademarked by July 2011, so I have changed that. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • For "officially announced on August 1, 2011", the source uses "Tuesday", which should be 2 August 2011.
    • Characteristics: "The first drop is 212 feet (65 m) tall" is not in the source. It seems like the 65m figure was used in sources prior to it opening, but not since. Given that the height of the rollercoaster is 61m, having a 65m drop would mean some underground sections. Not necessarily implausible, but a bit of a red flag.
      • The drop height is not implausible, particularly for terrain coasters. The station is above ground, and the terrain slopes down; the first drop is very close to the ground. Phantom's Revenge at Kennywood is a more extreme example of this - the lift hill is 160 feet, while the first drop is 228 feet. Additionally, the highest drop comes immediately after the lift hill because, unless you have very steep terrain, it is physically impossible to have the highest drop in the middle of the course. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
        • It's still not in the source, which is the crux of the issue. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
          • Oh, I see what your point is. I've now added a source that gives the drop as 200 feet. Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The citation for the lift does not support the fact that it is a cable lift. I believe that the ABC source does, so please move it.
    • Skyrush being the first Wing Coaster isn't supported by the Intamin source. I suppose you could put the sources at the end of "History" to support it, but the use of those sources already feel close to inappropriate synthesis of sources.
    • The idea that it has two trains is not supported by the source cited. The Word document you've used elsewhere seems to do so, but it's not very clear if it is 32 seats each or in total.
      • Also supported by the RCDB here. There are eight cars, each with one row of four seats, which comprise 32 seats in total. The ride contains two trains. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • No source for how the outer seats "inspired Skyrush's tagline".
    • "especially during the ride's airtime moments" is not in the citation.
      • Removed. It was not in the source because I thought the purpose of the restraints would be obvious - to keep riders in the seat when they are experiencing excessive positive Gs (in this case, during airtime hills, where riders are forced upward into the restraints). Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Ride experience: "Immediately after leaving the station" is not in the citation. It seems to be in the "Steep thrills" source, though.
      • This was a citation issue. The train climbing the hill after leaving the station is sourced by the YouTube POV. I would've added a better source if I could have found one, but this is a fact. I can't really address this further. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
        • As I wrote, the "Steep thrills" source supports that, and is a better source than a YouTube video. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
          • This makes sense - I've done it. Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I will accept the description of the video in good faith, assuming that it is an accurate retelling.
    • Awards: The 2012 Best New Ride 5th place was tied.
      • Don't know if you want to add the fact that it was tied to the table for consistency with the "Top Steel Roller Coasters" table directly below. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The 2017 one was not tied.
      • Also in the article beforehand, fixed now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I expect that quite a few of these issues are due to misplaced citations. But the sheer volume of issues is highly concerning, especially since this was created and reviewed by two editors who are highly experienced with audited content (Epicgenius and Lee Vilenski). I hope that this was a one-off issue, and not one that is systemic – perhaps it was due to the review taking place in the final of the WikiCup. As this article "requires considerable work before becoming eligible", I am marking the nomination with . The nomination is liable to rejection if the problems are not rectified soon. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @Sdrqaz: Thanks for the review, but I do not think these issues are major. Many of these are minor mistakes—in nearly all cases, I have fixed them without considerable work—and the recent GA makes this article eligible. I missed several things (e.g. citation placement, slightly incorrect figures) when reading the sources, but other issues are easily verifiable. I must say, though, I appreciate that you have pointed these issues out, even if it feels a little like a GAR. A lot of this info already was in the article when I started expanding it, and I forgot to fix some of the errors. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Just a note that I've fixed all the remaining issues and that the nomination is ready for a re-review. Four of these issues were resolved by removing the claim in question. I also fixed minor factual errors in seven cases and moved references in five instances. I've moved up my comments for clarity as well. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
        • I have left three comments on outstanding issues above. In addition, a source for Stengel being the designer would be appreciated – I remember that it is in one of the sources already cited elsewhere in the article. A minor mistake at DYK is having a hook that is too long, or having an article that is a few characters short of 1,500. I don't want to be difficult, but to characterise multiple verifiability issues (in a GA!) as minor mistakes is worrying. I'm also happy to approve the nomination once the rest of the issues are resolved, though it's understandable if you want to find another reviewer. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
          • I understand your point, but I described the issues as minor because, in some cases, I only needed to change a single word. In other instances, the statement was verified by another source in the article, and my mistake was forgetting to put the correct reference after each statement. My particular error is that I didn't check that the previous version of the article was correct, since that's where many of these issues came from. Even though there were several verification issues, I was able to fix most of them within five minutes.
            Regarding Stengel, I couldn't find a source that ties him to the roller coaster's design, which is weird because he's directly responsible for many of Intamin's biggest coasters. You might have read his name in the NYT article, but it only mentions the existence of a turn named after him, not that he designed the ride himself. I'm all right with you re-reviewing this nomination, since you provided very useful feedback. I just wanted someone to confirm that the issues with the article had been addressed. Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
            • Approved, as issues have been resolved. Of the three hooks previously approved, unfortunately only ALT0a and ALT4 are available for promotion, as the line in the article supporting ALT3 has been removed. If you want ALT3, please add it back to the article with appropriate sourcing, but ALT0a and ALT4 are fine in my opinion. Thank you for your responsiveness and patience. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Skyrush&oldid=1121344533"