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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

SheiKra[edit]

SheiKra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/SheiKra/archive1
• Featured article candidates/SheiKra/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all the FA criteria. This is the second nomination for the article as the first did not receive enough consensus to pass. All errors pointed out in the first review have all been addressed and is ready for a second review. Dom497 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per previous review. — DivaKnockouts 03:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "...when Griffon and Dive Coaster opened at Chime-Long Paradise in Guangzhou, China." This sentence makes it sound like both coasters (Griffon and Dive Coaster) opened in China. FallingGravity (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have followed this article since its unsuccessful DYK nomination and have (disclaimers) done my fair share of copyediting. However, most of the problems I've encountered have been minor and have since been fixed fixed. FallingGravity (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It has been widely improved since I promoted it to good article. Nice job. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Congrats on a truly great article--well-written, sources look good, and interesting. Nice job. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support - the article is not that far from FA, but it has some structural problems (and a few minor prose quibbles), that should be adressed first. Happy to change my vote after some more improvements (all points Done):

• lead "It first opened on May 21, 2005, and was converted to a floorless roller coaster on June 16, 2007, following the opening of its sister Dive Coaster Griffon at Busch Gardens Williamsburg that year." => Were the floors removed to strengthen Sheikra in competition to other coasters? If yes, this should be stated more explicitly.

No news article or publisher has ever mentioned that. As we are talking about the amusement industry, it is easy to say that they probably did this to attract more guests but that would be OR.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem then. GermanJoe (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• History "Original attraction (2005–2007)" the header is a misnomer, the section covers the complete design and construction phase aswell (either split 2001-2004 in a separate "Design and construction" phase or use a more general header.)

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "proposed a roller coaster [that would be] 160 feet (49 m) tall and [that the experience would] be like riding a barrel over Niagara Falls straight down into water." => awkward combination of non-parallel phrases, maybe "proposed a roller coaster that would be 160 feet (49 m) tall; the experience would be like riding a barrel ..." or transform the second part in a quote, when possible.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rose amended his proposal ..." => "Rose changed his concept" to avoid repetition

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "On October 20, 2004, a week before announcing the ride, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment (owner of Busch Gardens Tampa Bay[8]) filed a trademark for the name "SheiKra".[9]" => this is out of chronology. The information is not that crucial and should be moved to other October 2004 events.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bolliger & Mabillard took approximately six months to design SheiKra and four years to complete the entire project." => again out of chronology, would be a good summary statement after the work is described.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 2nd para "Rumors ...both a first for its kind" => description of fan email and miniscule details of rumors is undue weight. The important facts are: "Rumors happened for 2005" and "some new features, splashdown and inversion, were discussed." Anything else is trivia.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "During SheiKra's first year of operation, its computer systems experienced problems which stranded riders on the roller coaster." - a bit vague, any more info available? Complete system breakdowns or only occasional limited problems?

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "After the deal expired, Happy Valley Shanghai built an identical copy of SheiKra called Diving Coaster." => exact year for building the copy would be nice here to clarify the timeline

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ride experience - suggest to merge "Ride experience" with "Layout" in one "Ride experience" level one section. The shortish queue info is too small to stand on its own.

Merged.--Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reception "SheiKra was mostly well-received from [the public] and critics." => the section has little information about public response (from simple fans), could 1-2 notable examples be added?

The only other public response I could find are from was from the SheiKra web page...that's about it.--Dom497 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He wrote that the attraction was "underwhelming"" => but still gives it a 4 out of 5 for thrill? Could a little more context be added - what exactly was underwhelming in his opinion?

Added some info.--Dom497 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "... and was "[v]ery cool"," => "very cool" is no critical comment - remove.

Removed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Quotations - see MOS:QUOTE, first characters shouldn't be in square brackets (trivial typographic changes can be just done without special notation).

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most pressing issues are the article structure, some chronological flaws and the handling of rumors and reception. Aside from those points the article appears comprehensive and well-sourced for the topic. GermanJoe (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - all points have been addressed above, changed to support. I made some minor tweaks and mentioned the 2 new features as notable "firsts" in the lead. GermanJoe (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I read the entire article, made two very minor copy-edits, and saw no other issues that would prevent me from supporting. --JDC808 ♫ 04:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• In the lead I see "fourth-best" and "28 best". Whether or not there is a hyphen in the middle is an aspect that should be made consistent; I'd include it myself.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Original attraction: I see a similar issue here; "vice-president" has a hyphen here but not in the lead. Honestly, I wouldn't use a hyphen here, but either way this should also be consistent.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 14 should be moved outside the parenthesis mark.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "This caused riders to get stranded on the roller coaster and forced to evacuate." Feels like it needs "be" before "forced".

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ride experience: I see "45 degree" and "90-degree" here; the first one should probably include a hyphen as well as the second one.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reception: "Cridlin called SheiKra 'a majestic, one-of-a-kind roller coaster experience', and that it 'may be the world's finest dive coaster'." Needs something before "that", since "called" is bad grammatically in this situation.

I gave it a shot. Good?--Dom497 (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 32 is to Derkeiler, which looks like a newsgroup website. We wouldn't normally consider that reliable enough for an FA; is there a reason to consider it reliable here? And is it needed when there's another reference for that sentence?

The other ref is for Jonnyupsidedown which I don't even know why I included it. Derkeiler and Jonnyupsidedown are the only refd out there that state that the trains were revealed during this event.--Dom497 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sites being the only ones that mention a fact doesn't automatically mean that they are reliable. Again, is there evidence that they are? If not, that's a reason not to include that fact in the article. If it can't be cited to a reliable source, I don't think FAC reviewers would penalize the subtraction, if that's your concern. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 41 is to a YouTube video, not just wwwCOASTERFORCEcom as the reference indicates. I don't think YouTube is sufficiently reliable, as I've said before at roller coaster FACs. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three other refs to reduce the weight that the YouTube ref holds (ref 1 takes a lot of weight off, if not, most). This is POV of the ride. It can't be fake/modified. I don't think it should be removed because it provides the most detailed info about the layout. Also, I don't think it is OR by translating a video into words because the video clearly supports if the train is making a left or right (just as an example). Finally, YouTubes POV's are used in virtually ever roller coaster article that has a layout section.--Dom497 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref additions are good, but I'm still unsure about citing YouTube. Being in other articles doesn't make YouTube more reliable; if anything, it may reveal a weakness in other articles. I won't oppose since I don't want to be the one standing in the way of this article's promotion, but I can't say I'm comfortable supporting at this point either. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC nomination) The article is quite meticulously referenced throughout. It'd be nice to have some of those redlinks become at least sourced stubs, but that's not a necessity here. Excellent quality improvement efforts. — Cirt (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- In case I missed it, have any of the reviewers done an image check, or spotchecked sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, a partial image check was done in the first review (I don't know if that counts toward this review).--Dom497 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly all OK (own work, Flickr), just 2 points:

• File:SheiKra_Logo.jpg - i am not completely comfortable with this "logo". It is used at [[2]] under copyright. Suggest to reload it to Wikipedia as fair-use logo for identification - just to be on the safe side. Done (uploaded as fair-use).

  Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i tweaked the FUR a bit more (avoid "n.a." as FUR-parameter, all WP:NFCC criteria must be met). GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sheikra_Layout_Fertig_(en).svg - any idea, how this map was created? Where does the plan come from and how accurate is it? If the layout was taken from a park leaflet, that would be good to add to the image summary (minor point). GermanJoe (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  When you look at the November 1, 2012 shot of SheiKra on Google Earth and place the image on top, its pretty accurate.--Dom497 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem then. Status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources

• FN10 -- Okay.
• FN33 -- Okay.
• FN48 -- Okay.
• FN69 -- Okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 13:50, 14 June 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.