Talk:Coney Island Cyclone/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 14:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this one as well, will post review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Initial review
Lead[edit]
- Historic is a bit of a WP:PEACOCK word.
- Link Astroland and Luna Park?
Early history[edit]
- We're starting afresh so to speak with the prose from the main body so Coney Island can be linked in the first sentence here.
Area decline[edit]
- "were also cited as contributing factors", you haven't mentioned any factors prior to this so "were all cited as..." would probably be more suitable.
- Link eminent domain, I don't think it's a widely known term and its article shows it's known as a lot of different things around the world.
- "was higher than the city's proposed compensation", do we know what the city offered? Would offset well with the following sentence if they managed to raise the city's offer.
- "The proposed demolition of the Cyclone were seen as", should that be was seen as?
Preservation[edit]
- "The refurbishment was done by Great Coasters International", was done sounds a little clunky I think. Perhaps "carried out by" or something similar perhaps?
Current use[edit]
- "Legally, the land is owned by NYC Parks.", is legally necessary here? I'm assuming there's no question marks over the ownership.
- Link Wonder Wheel.
Layout[edit]
- Should the picture caption read "Seen from the west?
Track[edit]
- "and it takes about one minute and fifty seconds", to do what? I know what you're saying but include something like "to complete one cycle of the ride" or whatever the correct terminology would be.
Notable riders and rider records[edit]
- "On August 18–22, 1977", should this be between said dates?
References[edit]
- Not to be a pain in bringing it up again but, WP:ALLCAPS states to avoid shouting in ref titles.
- There are a considerable amount of refs without accessdates.
- Ref 67 needs a publisher.
Another good quality article epicgenius. A few points to look at listed above. Placed on hold for now. Kosack (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Kosack, thanks for the review. I fixed all of these issues, except for "was higher than the city's proposed compensation", which wasn't in any of the reliable sources and is now removed. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)