Talk:Fury 325

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fury 325. 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, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fury 325 Trains

Can anyone tell me why Fury 325 has 8 cars per train? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check the cited sources in the Trains section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you want to know what the source is, or are you asking why this particular coaster runs eight-car trains as opposed to seven or nine that we see on other B&M hypers? All three gigas: Orion, Leviathan and Fury run eight-car trains.—JlACEer (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Both, please? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fury 325/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Therguy10 (talk · contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pineapple Storage (talk · contribs) 15:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be reviewing this article! I'm a new reviewer, so @It is a wonderful world has kindly offered his mentorship. I'll read through the article and start making some notes in the template below, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fun one to review! IAWW (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Just noting that at time of writing, the nominator's authorship of this article is 5.4%, but they are ranked 5th in authorship so are eligible to nominate the article per WP:GAN/I. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Unfortunately it looks like I'll be quite busy IRL for the next few days, so it might take me a bit longer than I'd like to complete the review. However, I'll still be able to make some progress with it every day, so hopefully I'll be able to get it done by the end of the week. Thank you for your patience everyone! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    No glaring errors that I can see, and the article is generally clear and fairly concise. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead section Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead is a good length, and provides an overview of the key information. The only detail in the lead that isn't expanded on in the main body is the fact that the roller coaster was manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard. This is mentioned again in passing in § Records, but it might be good to mention the manufacturer details in the § History section, along with an independent source that confirms the manufacturer. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done – Though it's not really detailed beyond a mere statement, the History section does mention the manufacturer now with source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Layout Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • § Incident is currently a standalone section, but it restates and expands on information in the fourth paragraph of § History; to ensure there's no repetition, and that readers can be sure they're getting all the information they might be looking for, I think it might be sensible to make § Incident a subsection of § History, and merge the information from the fourth paragraph of § History into that new subsection. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to mention that WP:APARKS approach is to typically place an Incident section near the end of the article, which can cover incidents/accidents in more detail, and if any are substantially critical or important to the ride's history, include a brief mention in the History section as well. I agree that the contents in History should not simply regurgitate what is covered later in more detail. This version of Iron Gwazi when it achieved FA status demonstrates how minor incidents are not mentioned at all in History. This version of Son of Beast when it achieved GA status shows how a brief mention in History would work when done properly. I think the latter approach could work in this article as well. If agreed, I can make that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing this out! I didn't know there was a specific WP:APARKS policy re § Incidents sections. I did have a look at a couple of other roller coaster GAs, and their sections usually described more serious incidents, often involving evacuation of passengers, injuries or even death, and normally more than one; for instance, Kingda Ka#Incidents and Top Thrill 2#Incidents each list several different events, while Banshee (roller coaster)#Incidents and Firehawk (roller coaster)#Incident each only mention one but these both involved deaths. I'm really not an expert in roller coasters at all, or the style customs in WP:APARKS, but it struck me that the incident described in this article doesn't actually feel like much of an "incident" but rather a maintenance event that caused the closure of the ride, so would make more sense as a subsection of § History. Again, I might be completely wrong on this, but this was just my perception as a reader with limited knowledge of roller coasters/amusement parks. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think it's a excellent point that for one single occurrence, we probably don't need a dedicated section or subsection to cover it. Instead, it should be merged into the History section. I'll work on that now. Also, just for clarification, there isn't a policy per se being followed by WP:APARKS. The WikiProject's guidance only suggests a dedicated Incidents section; it doesn't require one. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah okay that makes sense! Sounds like a good plan, thank you! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done – Went with your first suggestion to combine Reception and Awards. Still room for expansion here, but it does seem logical to group these together while keeping Records separate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    Sources to be spot-checked (randomly generated):
    The source does state, "Fury 325 will eventually provide far more thrilling moments than the one it gave the media Friday. But the installation by a construction crew of the final piece of the roller coaster ... was a milestone" along with its headline to indicate this happened on January 30, 2015. If that's not good enough, we can simply remove it (and use it elsewhere), as Ref 19 adequately supports the claim already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I must have missed the implied connection with the date! (It doesn't help that the dateline only says "January 30, 2015", so it wasn't immediately obvious that "Friday" meant the same day the article was published!) In this case, I don't think it necessarily needs to be removed, maybe just switched with ref 19 so that the more explicitly relevant footnote comes first? I don't think this would be a GA requirement though so it's not a huge issue. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     fixed – This ref no longer exists. It was a duplicate of another. The section now uses inline citations after each sentence instead of paragraph citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     fixed – This is supported by refs cited in the previous sentence. Repeated one of those for this sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect, thank you! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the sources inspected do support the text, but there are a few WP:TSI issues here and there. I will likely do spot-checks of further sources later on in the review, just to be sure. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further sources to be spot-checked (randomly generated):
    Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Well-cited, and more easily verifiable now that citations have been rearranged to support sentences rather than whole paragraphs. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    No OR, as far as I can tell! Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig's result is "Violation unlikely" at maximum 10.7% similarity, and I can't see any obvious close paraphrasing or unsourced quotes, so I'm happy to pass this criterion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Article covers the subject quite comprehensively, with sections, coverage and levels of detail comparable with other WP:APARKS GAs. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    In my opinion, no part of the article feels excessively technical; the article stays on-topic, without any unnecessary/irrelevant tangents, and the level of detail reflects the coverage of the subject in the sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Most of the article is descriptive, and where subjective opinions are presented (ie. § Reception), the viewpoints represented do reflect coverage in the sources, so I can't see any issue with editorial/viewpoint bias. Only one small suggestion: § Reception currently only documents Initial reception, so it might be good to include some more up-to-date reception as well. From a brief search, I found these sources from more recently: [12][13] Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Epicgenius kindly added the Leshock source to § Reception, which pretty much covered this point. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    I can't see any ongoing edit wars, and the ATBE is reasonable. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    I've reviewed the images in the article:
    These all seem to check out from a copyright point of view, so I'm happy to pass this criterion! Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevance Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All images are relevant to the article and provide good illustration to support the text. Given that the caption for File:Fury 325 (Carowinds) 1.jpg identifies the damaged support column, might it be worth moving this image from § Ride experience to either § Incident or, if the sections are merged as suggested above, § History? (This is only a minor issue!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion, but it seems the main reason why this image was added was to show a portion of the layout (relevant to "Ride experience"). I used the {{Stack}} template to reposition this, so that it is closer to the History section. If that's not good enough, we can simply rephrase the caption, removing the part that mentions the cracked column. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me! Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Captions Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good captions are provided for all the images; the video of the ride, File:Fury 325 Carowinds POV.webm, could do with a caption, just to properly frame it for readers. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a caption for the video.
    Great, thank you! Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to get to this! I’ve been very busy and am super grateful to Gone for the help. I’ll try to assist wherever I can. Therguy10 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Pineapple Storage, just popping in to see how things are going. It looks like another very good review from you. I just noticed one thing you seem to have missed: the video has a watermark that should be removed (WP:WATERMARK). This doesn't seem to violate any GA criteria directly, but it seems like quite an important thing to fix. IAWW (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first watermark can be cut easily by cutting out the first section of the video. The icon in the bottom right is trickier. You could crop the side, or open a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop (I think that's the right place), though those requests often take a while to be answered. IAWW (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @IAWW Oh wow, I'm so glad you caught this! The watermark issue wasn't on my radar so thank you for letting me know. I will have a look into the options and see what's available. Thank you again! Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @IAWW I've had a look at the proposed Commons policy on watermarks and Wikimedia's legal guidance on removal of watermarks; from these, it seems like actually removing all traces of the watermark might be in a grey area re US copyright law. Because of this, I've left the in-picture icon in place, but trimmed the beginning and end of the video, and will upload it to Commons as a new version of the file along with a Watermark tag. I'll leave it to someone with more experience in copyright issues and watermarking to decide whether total removal of the icon is appropriate! Thank you again for catching this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. It is a more gray area than I thought. The article and review are both looking very good, and I would be happy for this to pass if/when you are. IAWW (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @IAWW I've had major difficulties trying to upload my trimmed version of the video to Commons, given the 100MB upload limit and the fact that Commons doesn't seem to accept MP4 uploads. I've tagged the video as watermarked, but I'm not sure whether this is enough?
    Also, what are your thoughts on the source spot-check above? I did find a few WP:TSI issues, and these have been fixed, but do you think the accuracy of sources needs further investigation or does the spot-check indicate general accuracy to GA standard? Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Pineapple Storage, I also had the same issues so I requested help here. I don't think this should hold back the article from reaching GA – what can be done about it will be done. Well done for doing such an extensive spot check, and uncovering several TSI issues. I personally don't think the issues were severe enough require a full source-text integrity check, but it's up to you as the reviewer to make the final call. Note that it is relatively rare to complete a spot check with no issues found. IAWW (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops I forgot to hyperlink "here" IAWW (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay this is really helpful thank you! Thanks for asking at the Commons help desk, I will keep an eye out for responses to your query. And re sources, this is really useful; I feel like the spot-check showed that the majority of sources support the article, but I wasn't sure whether the fact that the check identified any TSI issues at all would mean that a full check had to be done. As long as the issues identified in the check are fixed, and you're happy for the article to pass based on this, then so am I! Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Nice work, feel free to pass this when you are ready :) IAWW (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IAWW, appreciate your assistance with the review. Had a question concerning your your edit here that removed the {{Stack}} template. I had added it recently, so that the corresponding image would stack next to the infobox and appear in the Ride experience section. Since roller coaster infoboxes tend to be long, we have used this workaround in the past. Is there an issue I may not be aware of? --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @GoneIn60, I accidentally published that edit without entering the edit summary. Apologies for that. At least on my device, the stack template was causing the image to move left of the infobox, creating a large whitespace to the right. IAWW (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I didn't have that issue in a desktop Chrome browser. Do you see the same issue at Son of Beast (first image under Construction)? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it displays to the left of the infobox for me. Is it meant to do that? I am on Firefox btw IAWW (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, just left of the infobox with text wrapping above and below the image. This is expected behavior and allows the image to appear in the section in which it was intended to appear in. Without Stack, it goes all the way to the right, below the infobox, which may cause it to appear in the wrong section. Hope that makes sense. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying now. You can revert my edit if you would like. I'm not a fan of the whitespace created but I'll let you choose what to do. IAWW (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I also see what you're saying about the whitespace after testing in Microsoft Edge. Depending on the resolution of your screen and font size (some of which can be controlled/changed in your Wikipedia account preferences), there is a slight chance that the stacked image will run into an odd overlap of the infobox, where part of the image sits below the infobox. When this odd overlap occurs, there is a lot of ugly whitespace to the right of the image.
    Unfortunately, that cannot be avoided in all situations, but stacking the image is still useful for those with larger resolutions and smaller font sizes. This could go either way, but I think I'll revert it back until some deeper discussion determines that we should avoid or deprecate the Stack template. IMO, it shouldn't exist if it's not to be used. GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this helps; all looks normal on Safari on iPad. Therguy10 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    @GoneIn60 @Therguy10 Really good work everyone! As discussed above, given the tweaking that has already been done re WP:TSI, I'll be more than happy to pass this article; just for my peace of mind, it would be great if someone could iron out the issue with ref 14 ([9]) and then I'll close the review. Thanks again to @It is a wonderful world for his invaluable input! Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pineapple Storage May it just be better to remove that source? The only other “source” I could find was this but I can’t imagine that’d cover much. Therguy10 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep I think that might be a good plan, as well as rewording the sentence so that it only mentions the actual date of completion as mentioned in the 'BrakeRun2' ref (the other Facebook post, from October 24). Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just did this myself, so happy to pass the article. Well done again to everyone! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks y’all

I seriously don’t deserve this nomination. I got super busy this week and just didn’t have the time to work on this like I wanted.

So I’m thankful for each and every one of you for helping out with this; I really appreciate it!!!! Therguy10 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 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.
  1. ^ "Buzz builds as Carowinds adds final piece of track to Fury 325". Charlotte Observer. January 30, 2015. Retrieved July 20, 2023.
  2. ^ "Take a virtual ride on Fury 325, the new record-breaking roller coaster coming to Carowinds". WGHP. August 21, 2014. Archived from the original on August 22, 2014. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  3. ^ "Carowinds installs final track section for Fury 325 record-breaking coaster". Amusement Today. February 2, 2015. Retrieved July 20, 2023.
  4. ^ "Centurion". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Archived from the original on April 4, 2013. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  5. ^ "Fury 325: At a Glance". Carowinds. Archived from the original on May 4, 2015. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
  6. ^ "Fury 325: New roller coaster to be built at Carowinds". WXII 12. August 21, 2014. Archived from the original on August 22, 2014. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  7. ^ Patrick, Jessica (August 10, 2023). "Carowinds reopens Fury 325 rollercoaster, closed for over a month". WRAL. Archived from the original on August 11, 2023. Retrieved August 10, 2023.
  8. ^ Marden, Duane. "Roller Coaster Records Holders By Height (North America)". Roller Coaster Database. Archived from the original on August 26, 2014. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  9. ^ a b "Fury 325 – Brake Run". Facebook. Carowinds. October 22, 2014. Retrieved October 31, 2014.
  10. ^ Janes, Théoden (August 21, 2014). "Carowinds to get one of the world's tallest, fastest coasters". Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on August 22, 2014. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  11. ^ Er-Chua, Gloria (August 18, 2011). "Canada's Wonderland shows us next year's tallest, fastest ride". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on August 22, 2014. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  12. ^ Pritchard, Kaylen (July 3, 2023). "This is what roller coaster enthusiasts are saying about Carowinds and Fury 325". The Herald. Fort Mill, SC. Archived from the original on May 23, 2025. Retrieved May 23, 2025.
  13. ^ Leshock, Marcus (August 22, 2024). "FURY 325: Riding North America's tallest, fastest giga coaster at Carowinds". WGN-TV. Nexstar Media Group. Archived from the original on August 27, 2024. Retrieved May 23, 2025.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fury_325