# Talk:Nitro (Imagicaa)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nitro (Adlabs Imagica)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BrandonWu (talk · contribs) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This article should be interesting! I will try and finish this article within a 7 day time frame, if you don't mind Dom! (I see that Dom is currently on a wikibreak, so I will not start the review until he is off his break, and I will not be like myself most of the time, quickfailing the article if the nominator doesn't address the comments I make within 7 days) WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrandonWu: You may review the article :) . --Dom497 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


### Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
I will begin a separate prose review.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Lead could be longer, but it looks good for GA.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Good job!
B. Focused: 
Fantastic!
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
No bias because its a roller coaster :P.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Unfortunately, there is only 1 image, so I can't pass this criteria.
Sorry, rushed through the review. 1 image is okay, as even only no images is okay as of this page.

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
See below for a source and prose review. Passed! Great job!


### Prose Review
Lead
Could be a bit longer, but it seems good for GA.

History
Good job!

Ride experience
"Once the train is loaded and secured, the steel floor separates drops and the gate in front of the train opens."

Is it supposed to be "...the steel floor separates and drops..." or something else, because I unfortunately know nothing about roller coasters. :P
"The train then makes a banked turn the left leading into the first of the interlocking corkscrews. After a banked to the right and slight turn to the left, the train goes through the second corkscrew."

Shouldn't this be "...the train then makes a banked turn to the left..." and "After a banked turn to the right..."
Characteristics
Good job!

Reception
Looks good, but is there any awards like on this page?

Nope, roller coaster is brand new so it has not been ranked yet.--Dom497 (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Overall great job!


### Source Review
After spotchecking the sources, they are good on my terms.
The only worry I have is the YouTube video, as per Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, they should be in an External Links section, not a reference. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Per the first two paragraphs under the "References" section here, YouTube videos can be used a references case-by-case. Videos by Theme Park Review are generally reliable because all he does is sticks a camera on the roller coaster and records...nothing unreliable about that! You should also take note that almost all roller coaster GA's use YouTube as a reference for the purpose on describing the layout (as well as RCDB). YouTube is even included in a Featured Article, SheiKra.--Dom497 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay! Will pass the article in about 2 or so hours! Great job on the article! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrandonWu: Ok, I understand that your fresh out of the gates with GA reviews so I'll help you out a bit. I'm going to recommend you read this essay as it will really help create an understanding for what the criteria is and what it isn't. In this case, criteria 6b should be a pass. Just because there is one picture, it doesn't mean the article can't become a GA. An article with NO photos can still be promoted to GA. As long as someone has made an attempt to find pictures (searching for pictures under a free license) it's a pass.--Dom497 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497:Oh, I'm sorry. I was rushing to write this as I was on the bus to school :P. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Just remember not review article's half fast (You can review articles on the bus just make sure to do it like you've been trained). It will only get you into trouble down the road. As long as you take your time and review the article properly, everyone will love you. :P --Dom497 (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments addressed. :) --Dom497 (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I've been busy in real life studying for tests and taking tests (I'm in Grade 7), so I haven't done much work on this review. Hopefully I'll continue with the source review on Thursday/Friday. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No worries. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reference. I cannot believe I am even having to come here and say this. YouTube is a video sharing site. It is not a reference. --John (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@John: I'd appreciate if you showed proof that supports of your opinion (you know, showing proof that something isn't a reference or at least proof that would lead to your opinion is a lot better than just saying it's not a reference). First of all, per the second paragraph here (under the reference section), YouTube IS a reference. (The entire "reference" section in that article is actually a good read). Videos by Theme Park Review are generally reliable because all he does is sticks a camera on the roller coaster and records...nothing unreliable about that. You should also take note that almost all roller coaster GA's use YouTube as a reference for the purpose on describing the layout (as well as RCDB that usually supports the video; all in turn, meets Wiki guidelines.). YouTube is even included in a Featured Article, SheiKra. If you are still really against having YouTube as a ref, I'll just put it as an external link.--Dom497 (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@John: So you came online today but posted no response. I'm going to take it that you have nothing else to say and I will go ahead and soon remove the tag you added.--Dom497 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I am still against using a YouTube video as a source. --John (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@John:, @Dom497: If you guys don't mind me jumping me into this conversation, I was the GA reviewer for this article. Dom, being the nom, stated that "Per the first two paragraphs under the "References" section here, YouTube videos can be used a references case-by-case. Videos by Theme Park Review are generally reliable because all he does is sticks a camera on the roller coaster and records...nothing unreliable about that! You should also take note that almost all roller coaster GA's use YouTube as a reference for the purpose on describing the layout (as well as RCDB). YouTube is even included in a Featured Article, SheiKra. Articles are allowed to contain YouTube as a ref and sometimes they are your best bet. Hope this settles the conflict. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)