This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
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 pageorWikipedia 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.
... that T Express(pictured) is the tallest wooden roller coaster in the world tied with Wildfire, as well as the tenth fastest and third longest? Source: [1][2][3]
Reviewed:
Comment: I expanded this article 5x from a poorly referenced stub. Expansion began at 22 Jul 2023. I checked it with DYKChecker before nominating this article. I have one other DYK nomination at Prodigy Education, so I do not need a QPQ as of right now.
I will give this a full review later. However, I should quickly note that Mitch Hawker's poll is unscientific (it's an internet survey that any member of the public could just fill out), in contrast to something like the Golden Ticket Awards, which polls experts. Hawker's poll was removed from roller coaster articles recently, so I'm not sure if it should be included here either. Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Per the subsequent edits that were made on the page which removed information from this article that would 1)disqualify it from the 5X requirement and 2) were completely justified I think it would be a good idea to put this on hold until I can get a successful GAN for this. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 15:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I have corrected the stats - apparently I have mistranslated some of them from the Korean sources. As for the hook I think we can use the condensed hook you proposed. Oh, and as for DYKCheck the same problem happened on my end too - maybe the script is glitching or something. The script is working again and it said the article was eligible for DYK - looked like it was glitching for a sec. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 03:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long enough: - Yes, the expansion is from 1010 to 5167 characters of prose. For some reason, DYKcheck is not showing the page as expanded sufficiently.
Other problems: - I was wondering about the quote "Within its first 6 months of opening, more than 100,000 people rode T Express, and by the end of its first year of operations, more than 175 million people have rode T Express". That seems exceedingly high. If the roller coaster were operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, at full capacity (and most roller coasters never meet their full capacity), T Express could only handle 13.14 million riders. If the roller coaster operates only seasonally, then that figure is even less, but it's physically impossible for the ride to have 175 million riders per year if the capacity is 1,500 riders per hour. Perhaps you meant 175 thousand riders, or 1.75 million riders?
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Other problems: - I would condense the hook, as it's trying to jam too many facts into a single hook (e.g. "... that T Express(pictured) is the tallest, tenth fastest and third longest wooden roller coaster in the world?) There is no source in the article for T Express being tied with Wildfire for tallest, but you can use RCDB to cite that.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Overall: @Prodraxis: Nice work on this article. There are a few things that need to be revised. I've fixed the most straightforward issues, but there are a few more major concerns above. Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me now. However, someone else will have to review the revised hook, as I cannot review a hook that I have proposed myself. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I forgot that the prose says that the ride had 300 million riders in two years. This is also not physically possible for the reasons I mentioned above. Perhaps this is supposed to be 3 million? Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epic's hook pushes this past the line. I checked all of the items listed above in the article text and all seem to be addressed (they are out of order here so it was not entirely easy). New enough (when posted), long enough for the 5x, QPQ complete, no copyvio. Great image too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't really love the second image; imo it's not very informative and the umbrellas are distracting. The kowiki version of the article has a pic in the infobox that I kinda like, have you seen it? It seems to check out in terms of copyright status and isn't a privacy violation (faces aren't discernible). I think a potential replacement, unless I'm missing something. If not that, then maybe we should search for a pic online that we can use. toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Holding until comments are addressed and I take a few passes through it for prose and fact checks. Also question, no oxford comma intentional? Seems to be consistent on a quick glance toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale: So far, I've changed the second image and added captions to the info box. I will read over the article and make prose/wording tweaks as needed. Also, for the Oxford commas I didn't intentionally avoid using them or anything, I don't usually use them much normally. Should I add them in the article? — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 21:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Oxford comma; it doesn't really matter, as long as it's consistently applied within an article. A slight majority of Americans use it, according to most polls I've seen, which may be a factor in favor of it.
I prefer it mostly because it's what I've been taught. As a plus, I like it because sometimes an item in a list can have an "and" in it, like the concept of "Milk and Honey". If this thing came last in a list, I think it could read as a split between "milk" and "honey", but it shouldn't be split toobigtokale (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale: I've added some oxford commas and made some general tweaks to the text and added citations and stuff. Also, quick question: For the "inline to reliable" section you didn't mention what specifically to improve but noted that it still needs work. How can I improve it so the article meets that criteria? — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 02:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the Ride experience section, I think you'd need to plop source no.8 (the hankyoreh one) next to any claim that can be verified using that article. Also same goes for the youtube video. The POV video is apparently semi-reliable as long as it's conservatively described, but the claims about exact heights and degrees probably weren't derived from the video (unless you're really good at math) toobigtokale (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I formulated my thoughts on style. I think the writing could improve in concision and avoiding repetition. One issue is that subjects/nouns are repeated a number of times in close proximity. When I write, I actively avoid repeating certain words in adjacent sentences (unless necessary for clarity).
Example:
Within its first 6 months of opening, more than 1 million visitors rode T Express, and by the end of its first year of operations, more than 1,758,800 people have rode T Express. Within two years, T Express was able to get more than 3 million total riders, and 4,500 people rode the roller coaster each day.
"T Express" repeated 3 times in 2 adjacent sentences, "people" two times, etc.
I'd write this as:
It had more than one million riders within six months, 1,758,000 after its first year, and more than 3 million after two years, with 4,500 on average per day.
It's half as long, while communicating more or less the same info. I think key to that is relying on pronouns like "it" and taking advantage of parallel structure to let the reader infer things.
@Toobigtokale: Sorry for the late reply - I am getting ready for school right now and I am extremely busy IRL. I've added Source #8 and #9 to the end of each of the claims in the ride experience description. I've also done some rephrasing for clarity - mostly replacing repeated instances of "T Express" with pronouns. As for the exact degrees, Source #8 explains some parts so I added those to some of the claims, and I've noticed that Reference #5 covers some of that as well. Meanwhile, I will work on finding statistics and such after 2009. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 17:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you made were great, improved the prose. I revised a good chunk of the article, will explain what I did and why I did it.
I pruned details in the lead. See MOS:LEADLENGTH; this is a short article, so we should try to only include the most interesting facts.
I grouped similar records/stats together. I also wrote the sentences to give the reader hints up front about what kinds of records are about to follow. If stats are groups in an arbitrary order, it becomes hard to understand.
Related, I separated the records out from stats. They're easier to parse this way, and info about the ride itself gets to stay in the description section where they're more relevant.
Used a Template:As of. The link has a description of when/why to use it.
With the above, I think prose is passable now, I'll do some copyedits again later. I also fact checked a good amount of the sources and they seem fine.
What exactly did Rocky Mountain Construction do? The article currently says "with the assistance of", but I think I wrote that phrasing. Should clarify that if possible.
Done The RMC stuff was dubious anyway (could not verify the claim), so I just removed it. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her)
Need a source on the designer; I see it's in the infobox. Instead of putting the ref in the infobox, recommend writing out the info in the history section.
see the namuwiki page; while namuwiki is unreliable, it's a good starting page for seeing if you're missing something. Their article is really long and has some good stuff in it.
While the article doesn't need to be exhaustive, I think some of the info in these articles is interesting enough to merit inclusion. You also don't need to use the exact urls I linked, they're just examples.
Side note, I didn't know Intamin was swiss, was just a lucky guess lol. I guess they're founded in Switzerland and based in Liechtenstein, although they're commonly referred to as a swiss company toobigtokale (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put a cit need next to the ride seating capacity per hour; i couldn't find in the link where it says that on a quick glance. Did you derive it based on something? If derived, I think because the derivation is not immediately obvious, may need to either find a source or state out the simple arithmetic on how it's derived.
Imo the stopping incidents need a bit more detail. I think readers would want to know how long the ride was stopped, whether there was people on it, if anyone was injured, and how long it took for the ride to get back up and running. If the cases are all pretty similar, we don't necessarily need a full writeup on each one, but just more details. Up to your judgement.
I haven't looked at the article, but I think the brazil soccer team bit isn't particularly interesting and could be removed, unless they did something particularly notable on it.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It says in the article that T Express was retracked for the 2024 season by Rocky Mountain Construction. What is incorrect is that the same sentence mentions that Rocky Mountain Construction also built El Toro. This is partially incorrect information. Intamin designed and built El Toro, but they also subcontracted Rocky Mountain Construction to help build that ride for the 2006 season at Six Flags Great Adventure. Please edit this. Thank you. 208.125.139.162 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi y'all, some of y'all may know that T Express recently underwent the RMC 208 ReTraK procedure, replacing parts of its wooden tracks with steel ones, de facto making it a "hybrid" coaster. However, I don't think I saw an RS calling T Express a hybrid coaster yet. So, should I continue calling it a steel coaster in this article or should I use "hybrid coaster" instead? Also, although it is stated that retracking was done in the RSes I found, the RSes don't really mention the RMC 208 ReTrak specifically and just mention a general steel retracking. In that case, would just citing a self published source (e.g. from an RMC website or social media post) be sufficient for adding the RMC 208 ReTraK bit, or should I not include that all? Thanks. ~Δ(delta • t • c)02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, coasters have historically been defined by their track, which is typically either wood or steel. The term "hybrid" has been loosely used in the past in marketing materials and news articles (occasionally other sources) to describe a coaster that has wood track with steel supports, or vice versa (steel track with wood supports).
The newer use of hybrid also includes this new mixture of wood and steel track, like we saw with Lightning Rod at Dollywood where approximately 57 percent of the wooden track was replaced with steel I-Box. RCDB ended up reclassifying the coaster as a steel coaster. In this case with T Express, 380 meters of track being converted to steel means that only about 23 percent of the track was impacted, so less than half. My guess is that RCDB won't reclassify this one and it will remain listed as "wood". If other reputable sources are calling it a "hybrid roller coaster", then we can mention that in running prose somewhere in the article, but in the opening lead sentence, I think it should still state it is a wooden coaster. Then a sentence or two later, we can mention that a portion of the track was converted to steel for the 2024 season. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the expansion is from 1010 to 5167 characters of prose. For some reason, DYKcheck is not showing the page as expanded sufficiently.
Everything looks good to me now. However, someone else will have to review the revised hook, as I cannot review a hook that I have proposed myself. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epic's hook pushes this past the line. I checked all of the items listed above in the article text and all seem to be addressed (they are out of order here so it was not entirely easy). New enough (when posted), long enough for the 5x, QPQ complete, no copyvio. Great image too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 04:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done #prodraxis connect 15:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
