- The following discussion 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 page or Wikipedia 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.
The result was: promoted by
Spinning
Spark 23:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Krake
-
... that
Krake (pictured) was Germany's first ever
Dive Coaster?
- Comment: An alternate one can be:
... that
Krake (pictured) was Germany's first
Dive Coaster manufactured by
Bolliger & Mabillard?
- Comment: An alternate one can be:
5x expanded by Dom497 ( talk). Self nominated at 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC).
- Are you counting NewsPlusNotes as a forum....its not. Also, the other forums are to prove that there was speculation that this roller coaster would be built. No amusement park will every comment (in detail) about speculation, let alone publish anything about it in a press release/statement. Also, news papers hardly (if ever) publish speculation because in the end, the rumours could be wrong and it would look bad not only on the author but the news publisher. The only time that I know of a news publisher commenting on speculation of a new roller coaster was in the case of GateKeeper which they actually started all the rumours/speculation (Cedar Point never commented in detail about what the rumours).-- Dom497 ( talk) 03:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
-
Everything looks good for the original hook. 5x expansion checks out; article is thoroughly footnoted; I didn't see evidence of possible copyvio issues; the hook fact for the original hook is supported by sources that are reliable per
WP:RS; image license is OK. The alternate hook isn't as interesting because the added detail is not meaningful to most readers; furthermore, I didn't see solid RS support for the identification of the manufacturer.
- The use of citations to online forums to document the speculation about this coaster is unconventional, but I think it works in this article. Note that I edited some of the other reference citations to make it clear that they are in German. -- Orlady ( talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I forgot to mention QPQ; it's not required because this user doesn't yet have 5 DYKs under their belt. -- Orlady ( talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
-
- Promoting, but using File:Krake, Heide Park 4.jpg instead. The image offered does not look good in thumbnail. Spinning Spark 23:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion 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 page or Wikipedia 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.
The result was: promoted by
Spinning
Spark 23:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Krake
-
... that
Krake (pictured) was Germany's first ever
Dive Coaster?
- Comment: An alternate one can be:
... that
Krake (pictured) was Germany's first
Dive Coaster manufactured by
Bolliger & Mabillard?
- Comment: An alternate one can be:
5x expanded by Dom497 ( talk). Self nominated at 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC).
- Are you counting NewsPlusNotes as a forum....its not. Also, the other forums are to prove that there was speculation that this roller coaster would be built. No amusement park will every comment (in detail) about speculation, let alone publish anything about it in a press release/statement. Also, news papers hardly (if ever) publish speculation because in the end, the rumours could be wrong and it would look bad not only on the author but the news publisher. The only time that I know of a news publisher commenting on speculation of a new roller coaster was in the case of GateKeeper which they actually started all the rumours/speculation (Cedar Point never commented in detail about what the rumours).-- Dom497 ( talk) 03:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
-
Everything looks good for the original hook. 5x expansion checks out; article is thoroughly footnoted; I didn't see evidence of possible copyvio issues; the hook fact for the original hook is supported by sources that are reliable per
WP:RS; image license is OK. The alternate hook isn't as interesting because the added detail is not meaningful to most readers; furthermore, I didn't see solid RS support for the identification of the manufacturer.
- The use of citations to online forums to document the speculation about this coaster is unconventional, but I think it works in this article. Note that I edited some of the other reference citations to make it clear that they are in German. -- Orlady ( talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I forgot to mention QPQ; it's not required because this user doesn't yet have 5 DYKs under their belt. -- Orlady ( talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
-
- Promoting, but using File:Krake, Heide Park 4.jpg instead. The image offered does not look good in thumbnail. Spinning Spark 23:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)