# Talk:BuzzSaw (roller coaster)

Shouldn't there be a Reception section which covers how well the ride has been received by the public? - Shiftchange (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes there should. However, due to the lack of reliable sources a reception section like this would not be possible. I could write a section with the following information, but I am not sure whether it would necessarily be sufficient:
a sparse review from the Gold Coast Bulletin: "the scream machine is certainly a fitting way to describe Dreamworld's newest thrill ride the BuzzSaw"
how Dreamworld's owners, Ardent Leisure, described the ride following its launch: "successful"
the number of riders in the first year of operation: 435,000
how identical rides ranked around the world in the Best Roller Coaster Poll
Thoughts? Themeparkgc  Talk  23:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 Added to the article. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Much better.  Its important because these rides are added to attract people, obviously.  Knowing if it succeeds in that respect or if people aren't satisfied by it rounds out the article nicely.  Keep up the good work. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:BuzzSaw (roller coaster)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 13:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

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: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass! Good work!--Dom497 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


### Comments
Not really a major issue but are there any pictures of the actual ride that can be used in the article?--Dom497 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
None that are freely available. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The ride no longer the second tallest inversion....now its the third. You might need to change the refs with change as well.--Dom497 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  07:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the marketing section be sub-section of the history section?--Dom497 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  07:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't use "BuzzSaw" at the beginning of each paragraph in the characteristic section!--Dom497 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  07:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
"BuzzSaw's steel roller coaster track is 150 metres (490 ft) in length." - Maybe incorperate this sentance with the firs paragraph in the same section? It doesn't look right when its all alone :( .--Dom497 (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  07:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Be more specific on the roller coaster model. SkyLoop has 5 "sub-models".--Dom497 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  07:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Refs 11, 12 are dead.--Dom497 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  07:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
All good!--Dom497 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BuzzSaw (roller coaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926073147/http://www.parkz.com.au/update/2011/09/16/ to http://www.parkz.com.au/update/2011/09/16/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)