Talk:Disaster Transport

Disaster Transport has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 1, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
June 3, 2025	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Amusement Parks: Cedar Fair / Roller Coasters Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cedar Fair Entertainment Company task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Roller Coasters task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Ohio Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Disaster Transport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. References to sources:
~~See comment section below.~~ Good.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
~~See comment section below.~~ Good.

C. No original research:
~~See comment section below.~~ Good.
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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"..a name which was initially explained during a pre-ride show that was later removed...", ref 2 doesn't support this.
- Fixed.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many other rides also had to be relocated.", I could only find that WildCat was moved in ref 4.
- Well Matterhorn and Super Himalaya were "relocated from near Space Spiral" and Space Spiral is right in front of Disaster Transport.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last ride was given at 11:40 PM...", the last ride was at 11:53 PM (I'm not being picky) See last comment for more details.
- Done--Astros4477 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ride, though indoors, would close in any type of rain. Because of leaks in the structure, water pooled in the trough, warranting a shutdown. Typically, the ride would remain shut down after a period of rain as the crew would have to cycle several trains through the circuit in order for it to dry. Although the ride was enclosed, the storage track remained outdoors with a large door that opens when the storage track is needed", there's no ref that supports the ride closing in rain.
- We could use the Cedar Point website that still says Disaster Transport closes in the rain but that probly won't be on there much longer.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article could replace ref 15 as the the link has the same info as ref 15 but expanded. There is also some useful info that could be included in the article from it.
- Done--Astros4477 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied or fixed everything.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disaster Transport. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6G1fC72dB?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wkyc.com%2Fentertainment%2Farticle%2F254308%2F110%2FCedar-Point-Fans-say-goodbye-to-Disaster-Transport to http://www.wkyc.com/entertainment/article/254308/110/Cedar-Point-Fans-say-goodbye-to-Disaster-Transport

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disaster Transport. 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:

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) 07:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening date

As part of research for another wiki, Coasterpedia, I did a bit of digging and found two sources that suggested Disaster Transport (then Avalanche Run) probably didn't open on 11 May 1985. This article and this one are what I found. However, I wasn't able to find a new opening date. I wrote to the RCDB who have now removed 11 May from their entry. I thought I would share these findings here in case anyone can find the new opening date. NemesisAT (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

The "Story" section is far too detailed. MOS:PLOTLENGTH recommends 700 words maximum for films and video games: I do not think this rollar coaster needs the 795 that it currently has.
The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, like its closure.
The "Incident" section is uncited, and the last sentence of "Closure" is uncited.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Disaster Transport

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Story" section is far too detailed. MOS:PLOTLENGTH recommends 700 words maximum for films and video games: I do not think this rollar coaster needs the 795 that it currently has. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, like its closure. The "Incident" section is uncited, and the last sentence of "Closure" is uncited. Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the story length needs significantly trimmed. For an amusement ride, it is rare to need more than 300-400 words to describe that aspect. Since the ride no longer exists, it may also need proper sourcing, which it currently lacks. I may not have the time needed to do this, but if it jeopardizes the article's GA status, I would move that entire section to the Talk page for now until someone has time to fix it. The lead can be updated with little effort, and I've resolved the incident sourcing concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60 and @Z1720, I agree regarding the Story section. I condensed it to one paragraph, since half of the section was basically a super-detailed description of the queue line and not the actual ride. I also added a few references and removed the last sentences of "Closure". I think the only one of Zed's points that I haven't yet addressed is the lead. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the story is a little long still, at under 500 words I think its OK now. Citation concerns are resolved, and the lead has been expanded, so no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.