Talk:Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Chicago

	Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Chicago was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 23, 2022 Peer review Reviewed March 29, 2023 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited April 25, 2023 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amusement Parks: Six Flags Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Six Flags task force (assessed as Top-importance). Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 16 September 2022 by reviewer Bkissin (talk · contribs). Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Six Flags Great America was copied or moved into Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Chicago. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

When I was reading this article, I have noticed that some of the citations are not correctly implemented in the article. Some of the information did not have supporting data, or cited references.

Also, the title states that they are discussing the Six Flags in Chicago, but then discusses the Six Flags in Gurnee. There is no Six Flags in Chicago.

KT--KTsPen (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KTsPen: The name of the water park is "Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Chicago," and is indeed not located in Chicago, though this is how Six Flags has named the park. Sources here: Official website, NBC Chicago, Chicago Tribune (1), Chicago Tribune (2)

For other references, could you tell me which information has incorrect/no cites? It might be from when I had moved some information from the Six Flags Great America article, though I'm not sure. Thanks! Harbouri: Let's talk! (This is a legitimate alternative account for Harobouri.) 17:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Chicago/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Earwig finds no issues.

• What makes ultimatewaterpark.com a reliable source?
• "interest in building a water park close to Six Flags Great America was proposed; residents of Gurnee opposed these plans": interest wasn't proposed; the water park was proposed. I would also rephrase to avoid "proposed" and "opposed" so close to each other.
• "A later water-park plan succeeded in 2004, when Gurnee officials confirmed a water park would be built. In its first year of operation": I would give more details here, and we at least need to say what year the first year was.
• "The most recent addition, Tsunami Surge, is the world's tallest water coaster, which received accolades from the World Waterpark Association and Amusement Today's Golden Ticket Awards." Needs an "as of" for "most recent", and this is ungrammatical.
• "more than half of Gurnee residents opposed the project following the referendum": presumably they didn't oppose it following the referendum; they opposed it in the referendum. Or rephrase to give the referendum results explicitly.
• "Almost a month following the opening of Hurricane Harbor, a man had a heart attack in Hurricane Bay and died on June 22, 2005". We haven't yet said that Hurricane Bay is one of the attractions, and we haven't said given the park's name yet, so the reader doesn't know what Hurricane Harbor refers to either. And reading further on it appears that the park wasn't named "Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Chicago" till 2020. Was it just called "Hurricane Harbor" up to that point?
• "A few weeks later, a girl was slightly injured and required stitches after she fell off of her tube": is this worth mentioning? Seems like a very minor incident; I imagine minor injuries aren't all that rare at amusement parks.
• "Previously, the park had charged visitors an additional fee to enter the water park": earlier we said that admittance was on the same ticket; isn't this a contradiction?

Spotchecks:

• FNs 25 & 26 cite "On May 26, 2011, a new roller coaster was planned for the adjacent Six Flags Great America amusement park; it was announced at a zoning board of appeals meeting for the site of Space Shuttle America. The planned roller coaster was Chang, which would have been acquired from the former Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom and was to be located near the park's entrance but the new ride was later canceled." I don't see any reference to "Space Shuttle America" in either source, nor is the other park named as Kentucky Kingdom. And the date in May is of the meeting, it's not the date of the plan.
• FN 5 cites "Gurnee residents opposed the plans, and a group called the Citizens United for a Residential Village of Gurnee campaigned for a referendum about the project's approval to be included in an election ballot on April 13, 1999." Mostly verified, but I think it would be better to say "Some Gurnee residents opposed the plans ..." since we don't know how representative the referendum results were or whether this group was representative of the rest of Gurnee.
• FNs 39 & 37 cite "A new entry gate for the water park was built in the parking lot, and a pathway between both parks was no longer accessible to the public." These are the same article, so there's no need to cite both, though that's not an issue for the spotcheck. There's nothing in the source about a pathway or about building a new gate in the parking lot.
• FN 21 cites "Almost a month following the opening of Hurricane Harbor, a man had a heart attack in Hurricane Bay and died on June 22, 2005." The source doesn't say this happened in Hurricane Bay; I can't be sure I'm seeing the whole source, to be fair, as it seems to be partly paywalled.

That's either three or four of the spotchecks coming up with problems (one minor), depending on whether the last one is really an issue. I'm going to fail the article because of the spotchecks; I recommend going through each citation and making sure it accurately supports the text it cites before renominating. I would also recommend a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]