I was hesitant in doing so per my reasoning
here. If we were to want to rename it, a full
requested move would probably have to be initiated as I am not sure whether an uncontroversial move would be accepted. I feel this would be outside the scope of a GA review. Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Themeparkgc: I understand your reasoning but than why is "New Texas Giant" always referred to as the coaster in the article? Either way, I let this pass as long as you promise start a full move request to see what everyone thinks. :) --
Dom497 (
talk)
19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Dom497: But if I'm on the "slightly oppose" side, why would I be the proposer of a move? If you think this is an issue, then feel free to start one yourself. The only reason why I refer to it as the New Texas Giant in the article, is so that I can distinguish between it and the original Texas Giant without having to write old/new all the time. Themeparkgc Talk 22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"After relaunching in 2011 as the New Texas Giant, the ride's popularity has returned" - Sounds a little weird with the "was". Kinda an option thing to fix.--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify, "Six Flags Over Texas performed over 1,200 feet (370 m) of trackwork on the ride in the 2008-2009 offseason, with the ultimate aim of improving the ride's smoothness. Although the maintenance did improve the ride, park officials needed a more permanent solution. Initial speculation indicated the ride would be removed entirely from the park; however, Six Flags Over Texas denied any intention or consideration to do so" is all supported by ref 6? (I don't have access to the ref so I just want to make sure).--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Wasn't the cause of the accident published? If so I think that should be mentioned. Also, if possible, maybe include how this accident influenced many other Six Flags parks adding seat belts to their coasters (if there are no other sources than Screamscape, just ignore this comment) and how Iron Rattler was also closed after the accident (maybe this is going to far for the scope of the article?).--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Due to the lawsuit they only published the fact that it was not a mechanical failure, a fact I have now included in the article. I've also added the following sentence with a news article to support Iron Rattler's seat belt additions: "The incident saw Six Flags introduce seat belts as secondary restraints on other roller coasters within their chain". Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"Additionally, a 540° helix after the mid-course brake run was converted into a 180°" - Bolded part needs to be fixed.--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"Without losing too much speed" - This sounds boarder line OR because its hard to tell with the refs listed. I'd say its best to remove this unless there is a source that says exactly this.--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I was hesitant in doing so per my reasoning
here. If we were to want to rename it, a full
requested move would probably have to be initiated as I am not sure whether an uncontroversial move would be accepted. I feel this would be outside the scope of a GA review. Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Themeparkgc: I understand your reasoning but than why is "New Texas Giant" always referred to as the coaster in the article? Either way, I let this pass as long as you promise start a full move request to see what everyone thinks. :) --
Dom497 (
talk)
19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Dom497: But if I'm on the "slightly oppose" side, why would I be the proposer of a move? If you think this is an issue, then feel free to start one yourself. The only reason why I refer to it as the New Texas Giant in the article, is so that I can distinguish between it and the original Texas Giant without having to write old/new all the time. Themeparkgc Talk 22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"After relaunching in 2011 as the New Texas Giant, the ride's popularity has returned" - Sounds a little weird with the "was". Kinda an option thing to fix.--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify, "Six Flags Over Texas performed over 1,200 feet (370 m) of trackwork on the ride in the 2008-2009 offseason, with the ultimate aim of improving the ride's smoothness. Although the maintenance did improve the ride, park officials needed a more permanent solution. Initial speculation indicated the ride would be removed entirely from the park; however, Six Flags Over Texas denied any intention or consideration to do so" is all supported by ref 6? (I don't have access to the ref so I just want to make sure).--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Wasn't the cause of the accident published? If so I think that should be mentioned. Also, if possible, maybe include how this accident influenced many other Six Flags parks adding seat belts to their coasters (if there are no other sources than Screamscape, just ignore this comment) and how Iron Rattler was also closed after the accident (maybe this is going to far for the scope of the article?).--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Due to the lawsuit they only published the fact that it was not a mechanical failure, a fact I have now included in the article. I've also added the following sentence with a news article to support Iron Rattler's seat belt additions: "The incident saw Six Flags introduce seat belts as secondary restraints on other roller coasters within their chain". Themeparkgc Talk 04:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"Additionally, a 540° helix after the mid-course brake run was converted into a 180°" - Bolded part needs to be fixed.--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"Without losing too much speed" - This sounds boarder line OR because its hard to tell with the refs listed. I'd say its best to remove this unless there is a source that says exactly this.--
Dom497 (
talk)
01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply