Talk:SheiKra/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lead

I did a little reorganizement of content in the lead.
Maybe the world record will benefit from a citation there.

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

"One of the billboards said, "SEEKING, One last fling while I've still got it. Sheikra (w/ floor) 1-888-388-3088."" I don't find this encyclopedic, and it also gives a number.

Are phone numbers not allowed (its a toll free one anyway so its not a personal phone number)? Also, its info about a promotion the park used for the attraction.--Dom497 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, phone numbers are not allowed. WP:DIRECTORY#3: "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are not encyclopedic." — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it.--Dom497 (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same for the following sentence.

Ride experience

I find the queue section a bit weird and unnecessary.

I'll see if I can re-word it per that I think it should be there. It is the only mention (and most appropriate place) in the article about Quick Queue which there should be info about. It is also briefly mentioned in the infobox.--Dom497 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Quick Queue thing worth a mention, but I think that it is not well written. A rewording may fix this :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried re-wording it. Is it good?--Dom497 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

"located in Batavia, Ohio" comma needed after Ohio.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The paragraph is way too long. Consider splitting it into shorter ones.

I split it into two paragraph's where the first is from enthusiast's while the other one is from newspapers. Good?--Dom497 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Although, have you checked their reliability no? (Knowing you, I assume you did) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Their reviews, how can then not be reliable?--Dom497 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying they arent! I just asked if you checked they were. I just needed a "yes" ;) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking...--Dom497 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too :P — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else seems good. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all the comments.--Dom497 (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I can promote it now ^_^ — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]