Talk:Action Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag of New Jersey
NJ Portal

Action Park is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Amusement Parks, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Amusement parks. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Daniel Case (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Discrepancy?

The article lists both the Alpine Slide and the Kayak Experience as resulting in the first patron deaths. I have no idea which, if either, of these are correct, but I'm sure that somebody does.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.180.183 (talk • contribs).

The Alpine Slide resulted in the first death, but it was an employee who got killed. The first dead patron was on the Kayak Experience. Daniel Case 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Look at the "Fatalities" section. The first patron death was in the wave pool, according to that section (which at least gives dates). I've corrected the "Kayak Experience" section to conform with "Fatalities." --Tkynerd 00:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed / Neutrality Dispute

Where is all of this information coming from? Can we have a citation?

Also, this article is written in the tone of an partisan editorial, and not as a neutral information source. (E.g. "...underaged, underpaid and sometimes under-the-influence employees...")—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynamejonascuomo (talk • contribs) .


This needs change.

Agreed. I see a number of loaded phrases such as "shady business dealings". I think this article should be flagged POV. --Douglas Muth 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, a lot of this does come with the references section. I should put the footnotes in. But it is pretty much accepted and reported fact that the employees of the park were as described. And Gene Mulvihill's company did get in trouble with the SEC.
Of course, some of the wording could be changed. Daniel Case 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
One thing I would like to see is some documentation of the statement, early in the article, that increasing numbers of personal-injury lawsuits forced the closing of more and more rides and eventually the park itself. Since I became fascinated with this article yesterday (I'd never even heard of the park before!), I've been looking at information about it on the Web, but haven't seen much detail about lawsuits at all. --Tkynerd 02:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
A great deal of the facts in the article come from the two Weird NJ articles. I did mean to sit down and put in refs but I just fell asleep for a couple of hours.
One thing that should be clarified about that is that not so much the actual lawsuits, but merely quick settlements at the mere threat of one, were instrumental in sapping the park's financial resources in its later years. Someone did look and found very few actual lawsuits (But Action Park's well-deserved reputation probably led its insurance company to just settle for costs and a little extra, knowing that it would be hard to win with juries ore judges). Daniel Case 05:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just did some of the footnoting. Good thing ... I found my main source for the corporate history of GAR had been our own article on Mountain Creek, which I've long suspected of being written by someone on the inside of Intrawest (since the pics originally in it were copyvio). I found sourcing which holds the part of GAR up better. They were investigated not by the federal government but the state; Mulvihill did in fact take a plea in late 1984. I also changed "shady" to "questionable", a bit less POV.
However, I'm getting tired and I can't stay up all night doing this. More tomorrow. Daniel Case 06:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be toned down and the many errors corrected. 69.255.59.191 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Chris Ish

The article cites the Weird NJ coverage, which is about the only extensive coverage there is out there (until I get to the Herald articles Joanne Austin seemed to be using as source material for her main article) that meets our reliable source guidelines (coverage which is in two issues of the magazine and the book Weird NJ, Vol. 2. I saw your recently reverted edit; certainly, assuming good faith, you have your point of view and are probably telling the truth as you believe it to be.

But "I was there, so trust me" is not a standard we accept for including information in articles as it's not verifiable independently. Anyone can go look up the two issues of Weird NJ and see that the cited facts are as reported in the magazine (which is why it does not go over well to remove cited facts from an article, unless you have serious questions about the reliability of the source and not the accuracy of the facts themselves). All we do here is reflect the world, not report it.

Chris, if you have your version to compete with Fergus's and DeSaye's, and want to see it reflected here, what I strongly suggest you do is write it up and send it to Weird NJ, attn: Joanne Austin. Once it's published there, it can be referenced here. Daniel Case 03:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider doing that. I would point out that you do mention personal comments from someone named Tom Fergus (he must have been after my time) as a source for some material so I must admit to being a little confused about what is acceptable as a reference. I have my doubts about how willing to print corrections so long after the fact a publication will be. Some of the erros are so glaring and obvious that I doubt you will find them in print anywhere - such as the fact that the Kayak ride was in Motor World, not Water World, and that the Tarzan swing pool was so cold because it was a fresh spring and certainly not stagnant (stagment water would have been warm - think about it). As a long time employee who was working in the frist aid department when several of the accidents and deaths occured (inlcuding the kayak fatality) and was the cliffs supervisor the year after the drowning occured there you must admit that I would know a lot of these things. I would be willing to be a named source on par with Mr. Fergus. 162.129.236.43 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Chris Ish

The Tom Fergus quotes are in the Weird NJ articles that Daniel used as major sources, which is why they can be used. --Tkynerd 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It does make sense if the Tarzan Spring was cold (as indeed I remember it being) by virtue of being a spring. But that can't just be in the article because we sort of agree on it here. It needs to be in a published source. We had a brief discussion about the reliability of Weird NJ here; we seem to have accepted it (If you think the stuff in the article is questionable, you should see what I take out every now and then). Also, remember their article was largely compiled from New Jersey Herald stories, which may have made the errors originally and which I'd like to see myself at some point. "Reliability" on Wikipedia means "if it's wrong, it's their fault, not ours".

Don't worry about Weird NJ not publishing your letter ... they are always publishing letters and new articles about things they first covered long ago. Based on what they've published in the past about Action Park, I think they'd be delighted to include a long letter by a former employee willing to sign his own name to it. The next issue isn't due till May or so ... you might get it in even by then.

Also, if you're not familiar with the magazine and you want copies of the two articles, I'd be delighted to make a PDF and email it to you. Daniel Case 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find the artciles on-line. It looks like they archive the tables of contents on their site but not the full articles - so I think I will take you up on that. It looks like you can e-mail them through their website but if you have more specific contact info that would be helpful. "The New Jersey Herald" was the local paper (that name brings back memories). It was/is very small with a circulation largely restricted to Sussex County NJ. They are small enough that I am mentioned in it many times for one thing or another - they had extensive coverage of high school sports and other local events. As you can imagine the writers tried their best but were not all of the calibre that readers of "The Times" are accustomed. The articles often did have more "color" than you usually find in newspapers. As I said before, it is a small operation. If I have a list of references I'll bet I could help get the original articles either directly from them or possiby from one of the local libraries. I'm sure many of them used to archive The Herald on microfiche and may still have it going back that far. I live in Maryland now and all of my relatives have left the area so I would have to persuade people to do it through mail and e-mail, not in person. 69.255.59.191 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Chris Ish c_ish@comcast.net

[edit] 1984 death?

I've added a footnote linking to a NYT article about the 1984 death at Action Park. That NYT article, which is very short, doesn't mention a heart attack or the Tarzan Swing. Can anyone confirm that the NYT article refers to the same incident as our article? --Tkynerd 03:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it does not ... my source for the 1984 incident related to the heart attack is the Weird NJ article (which does not in turn enumerate its own sources the way we are supposed to, although it suggests extensive research through the archives of the New Jersey Herald). While it doesn't say so, it clearly indicates that death happened in ... The Grave Pool!, whereas the heart attack was connected to the Tarzan Swing.
It looks like that Times article is yet another death related to Action Park, and we can update the body count to six. Congratulations Tkynerd for some effective research! Daniel Case 19:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel! :-) This leaves me wondering what DID happen with that case noted in the NYT. It's clear that wasn't the Grave Pool, which was larger than the pool the Times article describes. I guess I was wondering if this might actually be the Tarzan Swing case, and maybe the Times just didn't have many details about the case when they wrote that item. In any case, 300 swimmers and 20 lifeguards sounds like a hell of a lot for a 110- by 50-foot pool...or am I wrong? --Tkynerd 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Or the Times (the AP, rather, or whoever filed the story before it hit the wire) got the details wrong. Believe me, it was (and is) the only really large pool there. The only pool most people go swimming in. But I'll want more details. Daniel Case 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are either missing a death or maybe one was misattributed as being in the wavepool (I'm pretty sure it is the former). One person drowned in the cliff diving area. I'm pretty sure it was in the summer of 1985. I was the supervisor of the cliffs in 1987, a lifeguard there in 1986 and I think it was the year before that. I was working as a first-aider there in 1985 (I did that from 1983-1986) and recall that it happened while I was there but on one of my days off. That area is still open and pictures of it can be seen on the Mountain Creek website (http://www.mountaincreekwaterpark.com/pages/attr_et.html). The "air slide" (they list under "bombs away" - the first thumbnial) and the cliffs (big and little moe - which is what we used to call them too - the third thumbnail) all let out into a 20 foot deep pool. At the time of the drowning the bottom was left unpainted in order to preserve the natural feel of a jungle watering hole. Someone went in (I forget from which ride) and didn't come up. The guardes noted it immediately but despite forming a standard search line were not able to find him. The currents took the body into a corner right under where the search line started (under the air slide) and as they took the first descent at the usual angle they swam right over him and then spent a long time searching the rest of the pool. After that the bottom was painted white - just as it is pictured now. I've searched the web and can't find any mention of it. I just sent an e-mail to the NJ Herald asking of they can give some assistance with this. I'll let you know if they help me out.

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There are some errors in the deaths/ references.

I'm not sure how to edit the text without screwing up the references so I will point it out to you here:

The sentence that reads; "On August 27 of that year, an 18-year-old from Brooklyn drowned in the Wave Pool.[22]," should say:

"On August 27 of that year, an 20-year-old from Brooklyn drowned in a pool.[21]"

I agree with what you said in the other discussion that the description of this pool doesn't sound big enough to be the wave pool, which was much larger than 110x50 feet. This might be the cliff diving pool incident that I have been talking about. 69.255.59.191 20:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Chris Ish

[edit] Comments

Hi everyone, Chris Ish (69.255.59.191) asked me to take a look at the article because he (I'm assuming "he" because of the name, if I'm wrong correct me and accept my appologies) had some concerns about NPOV issues. He seems like a reasonable person and willing to compromise, and has expressed a desire not to have this disagreement turn into a bigger deal with formal dispute resolution and all that, so this is good. I think we'll be able to settle on something mutually satisfactory. I feel I'm a neutral party in this dispute, never having heard of the park before now. I've looked over the comments here and on Chris's talk page, as well as the article itself (and did some copy editing, but left alone more complex content issues). Here are some comments:

  • Its popularity, however, went hand in hand with a reputation for poorly-designed, unsafe rides; inattentive, underaged, underpaid and sometimes under-the-influence employees; equally intoxicated and underprepared visitors — and the poor safety record that followed from this perfect storm of circumstances
    • This requires a source.
      • I should put it in quotes because that's pretty much taken word-for-word from Weird NJ.
    • This sentence does strike me as having some NPOV problems. As I understand it, "however" is a word to be avoided in this context. However, (heh) the facts, if they can be referenced, should remain.
    • The sentence strikes me as having some interpretation on the part of the writer. I'd encourage a rewrite of the sentence that merely states the bare facts. If it had a reputation, find a source where someone says this. List the events that happened. So, for example, rather than saying "underpaid and sometimes under-the-influence employees", say something like, "employees were paid below-average wages for the type of work, and there were seven reports of employees being intoxicated on the job.[1]" I realise this is the lead for more information, a lot of which is really well referenced and specific, but I still think the "show don't tell" thing is important here.
  • Things started to darken, however, with two deaths in summer 1984 and the legal and financial problems that stemmed from the lawsuits
    • This sounds POV. I'd suggest, "Then, in the summer of 1984, two deaths occured at the park, causing legal and financial difficulties for the park due to lawsuits." Or something less crappily worded.
      • Will do.
  • for some visitors, the park's reputation merely added to the thrill
    • I'm not sure how we can state this confidently. Is there some source that says this?
      • Weird NJ, and some of the cited blogs, again.
  • Hate to say this, but I'm concerned that the weird NJ article might not be a reliable source. From looking at its website and wp entry, it looks like a sensationalist magazine, perhaps not the biggest stickler for the bare facts. Also, if I understand the above discussion correctly, it doesn't cite its sources after specific facts. If it is decided that the magazine is not a reliable source, we'll have to find other references for potentially controversial information, or remove it if we can't. :( An exception to this, though, is the source for the statement that it's been nicknamed traction park: the fact that the magazine itself is using that nickname is enough for me.


    • We already discussed that at the reliable sources talk page (is that the one you're referring to?). In the many articles I've done here about things that have been heavily discussed in its pages, are part of the two books compiled from the magazine's pages and are part of New Jersey culture (The Devil's Tree and Clinton Road, primarily but not exclusively), I have only included things discussed in extensive articles that often show signs of being heavily researched through local historical archives and newspaper records, which are often credited in the text. If you saw the print editions of the magazine (I repeat my offer to Chris to privately email you PDFs of the two articles), you'd understand it is not like the website (after all, they want you to buy it, not read the website for free).

      They don't list their sources after articles? Neither does The New York Times, but we use them as a source. Remember, "reliable" is about getting us off the hook here. We don't and can't vouch for every source we reprint material from.

  • In 1992, five people died in a bus accident on the way there.[7] While for once the park and its rides were not responsible for deaths associated with it, this began to taint it.
    • I'm not sure how this is relevant, or what "taint it" means here.
      • Again this is from the article. This led to a decline in attendance.
    • I'd at least suggest taking out "for once". Aside from the POV sound of the wording, surely there were other times where deaths occured related to going to or coming from the park and the park wasn't responsible.
  • Action Park's alpine slide descended the mountain roughly below the ski area's gondola, resulting in much verbal harassment and sometimes spitting from passengers going up for their turn, who would often be entertained by the accidents they witnessed while at the same time hoping to avoid similar fates.
    • Cite a source or remove
      • Will do. I thought I had.
  • But the real safety problem was the sleds themselves
    • Editorializing and interpreting. Just state what dangers existed.
  • This was a very dark joke, as the slide led to the first fatality at the park
    • Remove dark joke clause: editorializing
  • In contrast to other rides, this attraction was fairly safe
    • Editorializing
  • The article does have lots of neutral, well-referenced info, which is great.
  • The article uses vague words like "many", "frequent", "numerous", etc., uh, frequently. I'd suggest being more specific, since this is both a POV and a factual problem.
  • For example: Many visitors weren't aware that the pool depth increased as one got closer to the far end, and only remembered or realized that they couldn't swim when they were in over their heads and the waves were going full blast
    • In addition to the vague "many" problem, I have a concern about how we can confidently state this, without a citation.
  • It was cold enough, in fact, that the lifeguards had to rescue people on some occasions who went into shock from the sudden chill and couldn't swim out
    • Shock is a medical term referring to an inadequately full circulatory system. I think this is a colloquial use of the term, but I'm concerned that the claim is not medically accurate.
      • Wording changed so "shock" isn't used. Daniel Case 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • incredibly steep slopes
    • Just say how steep they are (i.e. what angle).
  • Overall, I feel that the article focuses heavily on the dangers of the park and might be seen as biased due to that. To me, it reads like the writer has an agenda: to convince us that the park was unsafe.
  • I also feel like the tone of the article is sometimes too informal, written in a style similar to what I imagine the Weird NJ article is written in: kind of sensationalist. In many cases, I think wording could be changed to help this: "Sudden turns would send the rafts careening", "slammed into", etc.
  • Chris, unfortunately I must discourage you from editing the article directly, because of your past involvement with the park (see WP:COI for the guideline on conflict of interest). However, you can propose changes here and I or another editor can review them and determine whether they should be added in.
  • Also, the other editors that have mentioned above that personal experience can't be used are right. Of course we believe you are who you say you are and don't think you're making stuff up, but since it's theoretically possible for someone to fake it, there has to be a reliable published source in order to comply with the verifiability policy.

I stopped looking through the article at "Other attractions"; I felt I have too much here already. Let's discuss this far and work on more later. I'm suggesting a large pruning of the article: removal of unsourcable info. Thoughts? delldot | talk 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of what you cite can be addressed simply by putting more footnotes in. To a certain extent, the tone was influenced slightly by working from the article as I was putting it together a year ago.

It's not POV, it's a fact: the park was unsafe. I didn't get hurt when I went there, probably because I just looked at certain rides and said "you gotta be kidding me". But not everyone did.

I'm glad you saw how much I did try to source; I knew the article would never fly without it. Daniel Case 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Than-you for your time, interest and comments. I agree that my not editting it directly is reasonable. I appreciate Dan's willingness to send me the articles from Wierd NJ and repeat my desire that he do so. I have found Dan to reasonable throughout this and am confident that if given other sources that he will update the article appropriately. If I may be so bold to make one more editorial comment: how dengerous the park was depends on what you compare it to. It was not a traditional type of passive - strap you in and toss you about - park. The rides required active participation and some physical ability from the patrons. It would be more appropriate to compare it to other similar activities than to the more common amusement parks (which also report deaths and injuries).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.59.191 (talk • contribs).

OK, but it won't be tonight ... I'm working on some road articles and it's getting late. I'll scan the pages tomorrow. Daniel Case 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad everyone's willing to work together on this. I commend you both for your mature approach to this. Thanks for being willing to send Chris a PDF of the article, Daniel. I appreciate your offer to send me a copy and would like to take you up on it. Some of your responses to my comments suggest to me that the article may be too similar to the source, and could be a problem under WP:CV (which I assume you're familiar with). As you probably know, even if it's not copied word-for-word, a copyright problem will exist if the material is too closely paraphrased. If you email me a copy of the article, I can look to determine whether I think the wording is too close. Again, I think the article uses too much material from the Wierd NJ source, and some should be removed. A theme park as popular and unsafe as this one certainly seems to have been would surely have received more media attention that we can use. Is this the discussion at WT:RS you're referring to, Daniel? If not could you link to it? Thanks very much, sorry to put you to all this work! Oh, one last minor thing: Chris, please sign your posts on the page using four tildes (~~~~) so subsequent readers can know who posted what. Also, Daniel, I'm not really sure how to deal with this, but it makes it a little confusing if you reply right under my comments, and it may look to subsequent readers like I posted it all myself and am just schizophrenic ;) Maybe in the future you could copy and paste parts of my comments with replies to them? Or I could number my comments in the future so you can just be like, "in response to #1..." Have other ideas? Anyway, thanks guys, sorry to be so nitpicky. delldot | talk 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Rereading them as I was scanning them, it doesn't seem like there would be copyright issues (Really, I'm not that sloppy). If anything migrated, it was the tone of the article, which your suggested changes go a long way to addressing.

There is more media; but it's not really available online (The Herald, as I said, doesn't put its arhives online (and in any case I doubt they'd digitize clips that old) and the Newark Star-Ledger has the same issue). It would at present take a nice day trip down to Newton to go look at the latter; I don't think I have the time yet.

I'll change my replying style for your posts in the future. Daniel Case 06:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the WeirdNJ article now, and some time on my hands, so I'd like to go through the article and make the changes I suggested as well as others, which will involve trimming some out. Are there objections to this? If you're ok with me having a go at this, you can undo specific changes I make or we can discuss it here afterwards if you don't like it. delldot | talk 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to do some of them later tonight. As I said, a lot of it is just putting in references. If we do, can we keep that "sometimes under-the-influence employees" bit since it can be cited? Daniel Case 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the more specific the better (e.g. number of times...), but if we find a source that says "sometimes under the influence" I guess I wouldn't object to that. Why don't you have a crack at it then I'll have a go and we can discuss the results later. Peace, delldot | talk 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. I'm starting to make changes, I'm being very bold since I know we can discuss anything there's a problem with. delldot talk 17:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK so far. As I often do, I sort of hunched up when I clicked the difflink, but it wasn't as far-reaching as I thought it might be.

I still think, though, we need to make the point that the major cause of injuries on the Alpine Slide was not so much the falls as the poorly maintained sleds. As edited, it now sounds like it was a combination of both factors, but it seems in retrospect it was more the sleds.

I had thought of some wording for this, but it has slipped my mind ... temporarily, I hope. Daniel Case 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My but that section was getting long...

Sorry for the absense, I've been doing other things and kind of forgot about this. I think it's cool if you want to add facts back in, but we should remember not to interpret facts, only to state them (so not "poorly maintained", just state how it was maintained or not). I'm uncomfortable about the idea of trying to convey either one conclusion or another to the reader. We should just be presenting facts and letting the reader come to their own conclusion, as voiced by Karada at WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves (not that this is as extreme a situation!). Anyway, I ramble on. I only got partway down the other time, so I'm going to do another bit now. Peace, delldot talk 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A concern about this:

an otherwise standard small-engine car ride became a chance to play bumper cars at 50 mph (80 km/h), and many injuries resulted from head-on collisions.[2]

I find the claim highly dubious. Having worked as an EMT, I believe the standards for any collision, head on or not, is that a collision at 40 mph merits an automatic trip to a trauma center. I believe that a head on collision at 50 mph even in a regular car would usually produce fatalities or very serious traumas. The idea that head on collisions at 50 mph could happen in bumper cars, "many" times, and not cause massive amounts of carnage, seems highly dubious to me. The park's death rate would be a lot higher than that reported here. Now I gotta admit though, I (cough) haven't yet read the weird NJ article, so I can't talk. But I strongly suggest that we find an additional source for this or get rid of it. It would also be good to be more specific than "many" here. delldot talk 16:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, finished with this set of tweaks, mostly rewording and removing bits. I got as far as Action Park#Waterworld. I reworded the Alpine Slide bit, Daniel, so you may find it better, otherwise you can tweak it. I also took out "vandalism will not be tolerated": is there some reason why vandalism to this article is less tolerated than to others? delldot talk 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I also checked the source on the Go-Karts and rewrote the section ... the head-ons mostly happened at the intended operating speed, it seems (although I wouldn't be surprised if some happened with the governors hacked). I was unable to chekc out your edits due to an edit conflict.

As for the vandalism warning in the comments, I put it there because some months ago there was a lot of it for some reason I don't totally understand. Since most of it came from anons who I doubt read any of our vandalism policies, I put it where I'm sure they'd read it. I guess it worked, but what do I know? Daniel Case 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice catches to my spelling and italicization errors. I just finished another small set of tweaks. Sorry about the edit conflict! (I'm writing illicitly from work so I'm saving often, and I didn't notice you were working on it today). delldot talk 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shellac

    • I think it is ... it was recorded in the park's declining years, when they began staging concerts to keep the revenue stream up, and the article about that album describes text on the back of the cover on resuscitating victims of electric shock, which might be an allusion to the Kayak Experience fatality. Daniel Case 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Reportedly no, the CD liner notes apparently contain a map of a different 'Action Park': [1] Mathtinder 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another photo of the looping waterslide

Another picture of the Cannonball Loop can be found on Center of the Action: [2] Mathtinder 06:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs complete rewrite--wrong focus, sensational, serious POV issues

I see that some of this has been pointed out before, but this article has many issues and needs a complete rewrite. It's a fascinating article but doesn't at all represent a good example of Wikipedia editing:

First, it purports to be an article about Action Park yet the text in every section seems focused first on the safety issues at Action Park; perhaps it should be split into a brief descriptive main article and a detailed safety issues article.

Second (and even if the safety issues are moved to a subordinate article), it's littered with text written in an extremely sensationalist style. Simply placing a footnote at the end of each paragraph does not alleviate the responsibility to conform to the Wikipedia policy for Neutral Point of View.

Babaronwheels 11:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The safety issues are what Action Park is best known for, so it seems to me that moving the focus of the article away from them would itself be POV. --Tkynerd 11:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. If the article claims to be about Action Park, it should describe what Action Park was, give an NPOV history (including brief NPOV references to the safety issues that led to its reputation and eventual shutdown). But a detailed listing of each ride's hazards along with detailed visitor and employee perceptions of the park belongs in a separate article or at the very least in a separate section. (And even so, virtually all of that text needs to be rewritten in a less sensational style.) --Babaronwheels 11:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
A separate article would probably be deleted as an unacceptable POV fork in any event. The language of your proposal would, in fact, make that hard to argue against. Daniel Case 15:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
While it probably could be reorganized a little bit (I hadn't expected people to add so many tidbits about the rides, a few of which are not really notable in the context of Action Park or any other amusement park), I agree with Tkynerd, who's been very helpful in the past in developing this article, that trying to pretend safety problems are a side issue would be an instance in which an attempt to be more NPOV winds up becoming more POV.

Well before this article was written, "Action Park" was almost synonmymous with "concerns about unsafe amusement park ride design and actual liability issues". You cannot discuss Action Park without making that central to such a discussion.

I initially tried to deal with the individual rides' safety issues within the history section but that was taking too long and resulting in too many digressions to be considered an effective narrative.

As for "sensational" style, could you provide some specific examples? Most editors with more than, say, ten edits to their credit would do that. Using language like "virtually all" is not the best way to get people to work with you on fixing issues. If you're going to tag an article with {{rewrite}}, you better be willing to go into depth and detail on the talk page to get the issues fixed. This wasn't copied text ... a lot of research and work has gone into this, and WP:OWN notwithstanding people who have done most of the work in question have to really bite their lips when a very very new editor makes sweeping, blanket, unsupported statements about the problems he or she perceives in an article without simultaneously biting the newcomer. (You might have done better with {{inappropriate tone}} and/or {{confusing}} instead, perhaps at the section heds rather than the whole article, based on your comments above). Daniel Case 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One more complaint: the article's structure is confusing in places. It states that Action Park closed in 1996 but in several places there are references to rides being used in later years. While the article does describe the change in ownership that occurred, it still doesn't read well; either the article should be restructured and/or renamed to accommodate the change of ownership, or the references to later years should be moved to a separate article focused on the subsequent incarnation(s). --Babaronwheels 11:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That problem could be remedied by a hatnote {{see}} link to Mountain Creek Waterpark, which is what's meant by most of the "later years". That's the separate article on the current park using many of the same facilities that I think you're looking for. Action Park and MCWP are entitled to separate articles because they were two legally distinct entities which offer(ed) an overlapping set of attractions, even if they do use the same property and water rides initially developed for the former. Daniel Case 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)