![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Six Flags St. Louis SkyScreamer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
An anon IP removed this section without explanation, an edit that was undone by another editor. However, upon reviewing this section and its sources, I have decided to remove it again. The main reason is a lack of reliable sources backing up that this incident occurred. I've searched for "SkyScreamer Six Flags St. Louis accident", and substituted "incident" and "malfunction" in place of "accident", and the only info I can find is in forum posts on theme park fan-sites. I can't find a single independent news story confirming this incident, so it is possible we're dealing with something that got blown out of proportion. Further, malfunctions that don't harm anyone (nobody was on the ride at the time, something that every description appears to be consistent about) aren't terribly notable, especially since the ride re-opened relatively soon thereafter. Machines do break all the time, and the only reason that this would be notable is if someone was injured or worse during it, in my opinion. -- McDoob AU 93 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Vol Ultime and Star Flyer (Six Flags New England) really shouldn't have their own articles for what is the same ride (Star Flyer), manufactured by the same company (Funtime), and operated by the same company (Six Flags). I propose merging these articles into this article about the SkyScreamers. If there are no objections, I'll perform the merge later myself. Themeparkgc Talk 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I am just wondering if we can take off all each SkyScreamer info off the infoBox, because it just going to get longer since it is rumor that other parks are getting the ride and there is already a section in the article that mostly gives the same exact info. -- Jpp858 ( talk) 16:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
{{{small}}}
parameter in the infobox to automatically collapse the sections about each park.
Themeparkgc
Talk
00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Hi all! I have looked at this article, and feel it meets all of the C class criteria, so I have promoted it! Mdann52 ( talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If it has a reference in the installations section, then I will promote and nominate it to good status. -- Starship9000 ( talk) 16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
One thing to work on is the writing style. Do you realize that in the Tower section (both subsections thereof) every sentence but one contains the word "features"? (One sentence even had the word twice, but I've helped that one a bit.) Ladyof Shalott 03:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Put it in neutral, please. Here is a page that should help you understand what should be there. -- McDoob AU93 17:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? -- Starship9000 ( talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Starship9000 ( talk) 22:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
OK I'm curious. Why can you not read through the talk pages, see what other editors are concerned with, and then address those concerns first? Remember, there is no deadline. -- McDoob AU93 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Your question has been answered, yet you persist in repeating it. What don't you understand about what we have said above? Ladyof Shalott 03:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote SkyScreamer to good article status. |
Anything you want me to do to get it to B-CLASS? Like add references? Add images? Anything? I might go work on a roller coaster, bridge, or amusement park article and get that to good status. It can either be Incredible Hulk, Tsing Ma Bridge, 2013 in amusement parks, Central Park Carousel, or Diamond Head Light. Seriously, anything I should do to get B-CLASS-- Starship9000 ( talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to make it blatantly obvious, here are things I have just pulled out from the discussion above (I have also a couple of issues of my own at the end):
If these issues are addressed, the article will be closer to the standard it needs to be in order for a promotion. This does not mean that it will definitely get GA status though! Once you think you have resolved an issue, feel free to reply with the number relating to the point above and other editors involved can verify it. Hope this makes it clear for you. Themeparkgc Talk 23:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Edited: Themeparkgc Talk 01:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, instead of trying to explain what needed changing, I started changing it, but first a huge thank-you to Themeparkgc for his comments. I've gone through the existing installations of the rides to remove as many primary sources as I could, replacing them with third-party reliable sources, such as newspapers. Some primary sources are acceptable if they merely establish the date the ride was announced; this may need to be the case for Vol Ultime as I could not find any Montreal or Quebec newspaper website that covered the announcement of the ride (and I checked in both English and French). I was, however, able to locate a French-language source for its opening date and stats, so the article reflects that.
As to the use of Facebook as a source, I agree it should be as little as possible, and if used at all it should be for non-controversial information. In the case of where SF St. Louis' version was going in the park, I left it there and linked to a response from SF St. Louis' official Facebook account. If someone can find a newspaper article mentioning this, that would be better and this would come out.
I can track down newspaper articles about the SF Over Texas and SF Over Georgia announcements without any trouble, especially for the latter as it's my home park. My own research has discovered that SFOG's version may not reach the proposed height in the announcement. My source for this is the FAA, which is as reliable as they come, but the park is sticking to its guns for the height, so I think I'll leave this out in case they've been awarded a variance of which I'm not aware.
-- McDoob AU93 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not see issues so is it ready for B-class? -- Starship9000 ( talk) 19:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There was an edit dispute not too long ago regarding the number of links to Six Flags park pages for the given park's installation of SkyScreamer. Some editors think it's too promotional, while others feel it's a legitimate use of external links. Since the pages are pretty repetitive, and any one page will get you to the other six, I would agree that maybe only one would be needed. Which one? I'd say the first one installed, which would be Six Flags St. Louis.
However, I would also be afraid that we'd get editors wanting THEIR park's page highlighted instead, so maybe it is a good idea to just go ahead and include all of them. Opinions? -- McDoob AU93 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody add SFA's addition to the info-box? -- Jpp858 ( talk) 15:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There is some inconsistency with the conversion from feet to meter and the other way around. In the History part two towers of 390 ft and 400 ft are both converted to 120 meter, which is of course not right. JulioJo ( talk) 11:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Six Flags St. Louis SkyScreamer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
An anon IP removed this section without explanation, an edit that was undone by another editor. However, upon reviewing this section and its sources, I have decided to remove it again. The main reason is a lack of reliable sources backing up that this incident occurred. I've searched for "SkyScreamer Six Flags St. Louis accident", and substituted "incident" and "malfunction" in place of "accident", and the only info I can find is in forum posts on theme park fan-sites. I can't find a single independent news story confirming this incident, so it is possible we're dealing with something that got blown out of proportion. Further, malfunctions that don't harm anyone (nobody was on the ride at the time, something that every description appears to be consistent about) aren't terribly notable, especially since the ride re-opened relatively soon thereafter. Machines do break all the time, and the only reason that this would be notable is if someone was injured or worse during it, in my opinion. -- McDoob AU 93 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Vol Ultime and Star Flyer (Six Flags New England) really shouldn't have their own articles for what is the same ride (Star Flyer), manufactured by the same company (Funtime), and operated by the same company (Six Flags). I propose merging these articles into this article about the SkyScreamers. If there are no objections, I'll perform the merge later myself. Themeparkgc Talk 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I am just wondering if we can take off all each SkyScreamer info off the infoBox, because it just going to get longer since it is rumor that other parks are getting the ride and there is already a section in the article that mostly gives the same exact info. -- Jpp858 ( talk) 16:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
{{{small}}}
parameter in the infobox to automatically collapse the sections about each park.
Themeparkgc
Talk
00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Hi all! I have looked at this article, and feel it meets all of the C class criteria, so I have promoted it! Mdann52 ( talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If it has a reference in the installations section, then I will promote and nominate it to good status. -- Starship9000 ( talk) 16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
One thing to work on is the writing style. Do you realize that in the Tower section (both subsections thereof) every sentence but one contains the word "features"? (One sentence even had the word twice, but I've helped that one a bit.) Ladyof Shalott 03:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Put it in neutral, please. Here is a page that should help you understand what should be there. -- McDoob AU93 17:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? -- Starship9000 ( talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Starship9000 ( talk) 22:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
OK I'm curious. Why can you not read through the talk pages, see what other editors are concerned with, and then address those concerns first? Remember, there is no deadline. -- McDoob AU93 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Your question has been answered, yet you persist in repeating it. What don't you understand about what we have said above? Ladyof Shalott 03:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote SkyScreamer to good article status. |
Anything you want me to do to get it to B-CLASS? Like add references? Add images? Anything? I might go work on a roller coaster, bridge, or amusement park article and get that to good status. It can either be Incredible Hulk, Tsing Ma Bridge, 2013 in amusement parks, Central Park Carousel, or Diamond Head Light. Seriously, anything I should do to get B-CLASS-- Starship9000 ( talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to make it blatantly obvious, here are things I have just pulled out from the discussion above (I have also a couple of issues of my own at the end):
If these issues are addressed, the article will be closer to the standard it needs to be in order for a promotion. This does not mean that it will definitely get GA status though! Once you think you have resolved an issue, feel free to reply with the number relating to the point above and other editors involved can verify it. Hope this makes it clear for you. Themeparkgc Talk 23:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Edited: Themeparkgc Talk 01:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, instead of trying to explain what needed changing, I started changing it, but first a huge thank-you to Themeparkgc for his comments. I've gone through the existing installations of the rides to remove as many primary sources as I could, replacing them with third-party reliable sources, such as newspapers. Some primary sources are acceptable if they merely establish the date the ride was announced; this may need to be the case for Vol Ultime as I could not find any Montreal or Quebec newspaper website that covered the announcement of the ride (and I checked in both English and French). I was, however, able to locate a French-language source for its opening date and stats, so the article reflects that.
As to the use of Facebook as a source, I agree it should be as little as possible, and if used at all it should be for non-controversial information. In the case of where SF St. Louis' version was going in the park, I left it there and linked to a response from SF St. Louis' official Facebook account. If someone can find a newspaper article mentioning this, that would be better and this would come out.
I can track down newspaper articles about the SF Over Texas and SF Over Georgia announcements without any trouble, especially for the latter as it's my home park. My own research has discovered that SFOG's version may not reach the proposed height in the announcement. My source for this is the FAA, which is as reliable as they come, but the park is sticking to its guns for the height, so I think I'll leave this out in case they've been awarded a variance of which I'm not aware.
-- McDoob AU93 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not see issues so is it ready for B-class? -- Starship9000 ( talk) 19:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There was an edit dispute not too long ago regarding the number of links to Six Flags park pages for the given park's installation of SkyScreamer. Some editors think it's too promotional, while others feel it's a legitimate use of external links. Since the pages are pretty repetitive, and any one page will get you to the other six, I would agree that maybe only one would be needed. Which one? I'd say the first one installed, which would be Six Flags St. Louis.
However, I would also be afraid that we'd get editors wanting THEIR park's page highlighted instead, so maybe it is a good idea to just go ahead and include all of them. Opinions? -- McDoob AU93 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody add SFA's addition to the info-box? -- Jpp858 ( talk) 15:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There is some inconsistency with the conversion from feet to meter and the other way around. In the History part two towers of 390 ft and 400 ft are both converted to 120 meter, which is of course not right. JulioJo ( talk) 11:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)