Other than the aforementioned corkscrew I see absolutely nothing wrong grammatically with how the article is written. Nothing gets printed in a newpaper without first being reviewed by an editor or two.
That doesn't have anything to do with style. I can't remember when the last time I counted that many sentence fragments. I understand that typically news in print is highly paraphrased and unimportant "understood" words are generally left out. Even after all that - news print articles still have complete sentences.
Those of you who don't see the errors ... well I'll just leave it at that.
Anyway ... I never had the chance to ride it, but it looks pretty cool.
Journalism guy here. Granted, the sentences should have been a little longer, in my opinion, as I thought they were a bit too fragmented for my tastes. However, for some people, that's a decent style to write in. Makes it easier to read at times, especially for a short piece like that.
Corkscrews? Whatever. I've long given up on caring or being surprised about what news articles or TV shows say. I've even heard people refer to hills as "loops."
It seems that details about roller coasters and amusement parks in general just don't matter.
I'm quite impressed that an article about a wooden coaster that is not new and doesn't break any records actually got *any* press at all! How often does that happen? It's a refreshing change from the usual even if the writing "style" left something to be desired.
I have a 4 year old cousin (who was born in Russia and adopted by my cousin) who could have written that.
I'm suprised it wasn't written in chat speak. Is that going to become an accepted journalistic "style" now? Why not, everyone does it.
That guy should be blacklisted from ever publishing again for that waste of time.
Millrace, it would have been a good article about a wooden coaster if I could have gotten more than a few lines into. I read the first couple "paragraphs" and realized there was absolutely no substance to it at all. It was just a collection of sentence fragments thrown into a word document that seemed to follow a derailed train of thought.
But surely it is a refreshing change from the stupid articles I usually see that are full of superlatives describing the latest and "greatest" whatever and full of terms like "extreme," "rush," "faint of heart." "state of the art technology," and other such overused roller coaster terms. I like that it actually went back to the basics and described riding a coaster as fun.
And what was originally written could have been much fuller then what appeared. It just might have been an editor with a lack of space and a lack of time who cut it down to the version we are reading.
I'm not suggesting that it is the greatest piece of literature ever created. I'm saying that it is very rare to find a good article on roller coasters in "general public" media and that in comparison to what else is out there, this really isn't so bad. A little strange, yes but whatever.