Talk:Giant Dipper (Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk): Difference between revisions

 

Line 45: Line 45:

:”The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style=”color: var(–color-error, red);”>”’Please do not modify it.”'</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] ”’after”’ discussing it on the closer’s talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.”

:”The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style=”color: var(–color-error, red);”>”’Please do not modify it.”'</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] ”’after”’ discussing it on the closer’s talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.”

The result of the move request was: ”’moved.”’ Not creating a DAB page per [[WP:ONEOTHER]], a hatnote will suffice. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:Sophisticatedevening|<span style=”color: purple”>Sophisticatedevening</span>]]^{[[User talk:Sophisticatedevening|<span style=”color: purple”>(talk)</span>]]} 13:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: ”’moved.”’. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:Sophisticatedevening|<span style=”color: purple”>Sophisticatedevening</span>]]^{[[User talk:Sophisticatedevening|<span style=”color: purple”>(talk)</span>]]} 13:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

—-

—-

All those pics need to be put in one place. -Ceres3 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceres3 (talk • contribs)

Now it’s just deformed. Coastergeekperson04 03:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it up! —Coastergeekperson04^{‘s talk}@ 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the listed cost of a ride. It is actually $4.50 not $6.00 (it is 6 tickets at $0.75 each).
Pedorro (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid dated terms like “now” or “current”. For example, it might have inflated since 2008. W Nowicki (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text refers to an “image 4” but there are only three. Will remove.
W Nowicki (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Giant Dipper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! — Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty solid, and I don’t think it’ll have much difficulty reaching GA status. Thanks again for your work on it! I do think it has some minor organizational problems that need to be cleaned up–information duplicated between sections, and numerous one-paragraph sections that form a minor WP:LAYOUT issue. I also have a few questions about sourcing.

• ” was built on the site” — state again where the site was; the body shouldn’t rely on the lead.
• “rejected a hoodie among other prizes” — rejected a hoodie? They all refused to accept it?
• the many small sections here should be combined per WP:LAYOUT. For example, there’s no reason to separate “incidents” or “construction” from “history”, and no reason to have three small sections subdividing “ride experience”.

  I’ve formatted the sections to follow the layout of other roller coaster articles.–Dom497 (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• that are still operating from the “golden age of roller coasters.” — this opinion (“golden age”) should be attributed in text — “what ACE calls the ‘golden age of roller coasters'”
• Reference 19, the YouTube link, appears to link to an unofficial copy of the song, and therefore probable copyvio. The link should be removed. You might simply write a citation to the song directly, without a link, or not provide a citation for this sentence at all. (It’s not the type of claim that needs to be cited per criterion 2b).
• “The ride celebrated its 60 millionth rider in 2012” — no need to repeat this in multiple sections
• “It was awarded the American Coaster Enthusiasts Golden Age Coaster award in June 1994” — no need to repeat this in multiple sections
• “Giant Dipper was also awarded the ACE Coaster Landmark award on May 5, 2007 at the 100th anniversary of Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk.” — no need to repeat this in multiple sections
• “Incidents” seems like a euphemism, which falls under WP:WTW (criterion 1b). Since these were all fatalities, I’d suggest simply writing “fatalities”.

   Done—Dom497 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Roller Coaster DataBase a reliable source? — Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll answer this one! RCDB is reliable…it is used in virtually every roller coaster article that is a GA, FA, FL (especially this one), or neither. Duane (the guy who owns the database) only includes information that can be confirmed by a source that he can trust. There was also this discussion that talked a bit about RCDB and this one.–Dom497 (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody who’s chipped in to finish this off! I think we’re on the home stretch; only a few last checks to do. — Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Giant Dipper. 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) 16:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Giant Dipper. 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) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]