|Boston is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2007.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Boston has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 20, 2004 and September 17, 2011.|
'History of Boston' missing from See also references
I would correct this omission myself, but for some reason, I've been unable to invoke edit mode for this article for the past 48 hrs.
Before that, I had drafted a criticism here, accusing this article of being deficient in its coverage of Boston history. Luckily, before posting it, it dawned on me that this topic might be covered in a separate article, which I then found. Hence, this article's custodians wasted my time--not to mention narrowly escaped incurring a false criticism of your efforts--by failing to include en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Boston in your list of See also references, at bottom. I mean, huh?
- A "See also" would be inappropriate, because History of Boston is linked within the article, at the top of the History section. I'm sorry you overlooked it. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
So, the demographics sections states that the cities black population has decreased but I looked at the census results and according to them it actually increased so I removed that sentenece. Also, the black percentage is wrong, that was only for non-hispanic blacks and not blacks as a whole so I changed that as well. Now, that I've explained that I hope someone doesn't revert it back to the way it was again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Using the edit summaries to explain your edits is one of the best ways to avoid misunderstandings. Providing reliable sourcing for new or changed information is another. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Diminished article quality
As it stands the article would probably not meet the FA criteria, as many non constructive edits have been performed since the last review five years ago. I'm signalling this with the hope the article can be repaired so no further review will be needed. The most visible problems are:
- unreferenced and disputed content: 4 "citation needed" tags in article
- MOS issues: 2x bare URLs, MOS:HEAD not followed, etc
- excessive number of images: text sandwiched between images. When the article was promoted had 14 images, now it has 43 excluding the infobox. Several captions are too long.
- decorative flagicons added to the sister cities section
- Prose issues: lead bit clumsy repeating "Boston" 16 times.
- Navbarfarm : 12!
Cut, cut, cut
Not that I'm Orwell or anything, but one of my personal writing tenets is to remember that every word added dilutes the effect of all the others, so one must ask whether, in sum, a given piece of information actually adds to or detracts from the readers ability to come away with a good understanding of the subject. I'm in a pissy mood so maybe some of these don't deserve to be listed here, but honestly, does the reader really want to learn (or be misinformed by)...
- that the MBTA lines are color-coded as orange, green, red, blue, silver and purple.
- that the rail system is the 5th busiest, but the bus system is the 7th busiest, while transit usage is 3rd in the nation, and it's the 3rd busiest commuter rail network (and we even name #1 and #2 in case you care)
- the names of the northermost, southernmost, and westernmost cities reached by the T (which has 65.5 miles of track -- the .5 is important, you know)
- that there's a choice of electric and gas suppliers (which is true in the entire state, and most other states too) and their previous names, and the current and former names of steam companies, as if 1 in 100 people even know what a steam company does
- the 13 names of Verizon's predecessors, somehow erroneously identifying the "Bell System" as the ultimate predecessor
- population figures to the "exact" individual, and percentages to two decimal places
- that the Marathon "always coincides with a Red Sox home baseball game that starts at 11:05 am, the only MLB game all year to start before noon local time" WOW!
- that the ZBA has seven members
- yes, and they're appointed by the mayor
- shockingly, we are not told the cardinality of the School Committee
- that Menino was "reelected in 2009 for a fifth term, the longest in the city's history" (actually, it makes sense to mention Menino's long tenure, though I'm skeptical as to whether his fifth term was longer than any of his other terms)
- that the Patriots are "A charter member of the American Football League, the team joined the National Football League in 1970." Is this information about Boston?
- "Boston is the country's third most densely populated city that is not a part of a larger city's metropolitan area" What in the world is the significance of this precise but essentially uninterpretable ranking?
- misuse of the term "Boston proper", which has a technical (if now-little-used) meaning in the internal organization of city government
- the detail that the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston happens to be the First District of the Federal Reserve.
There are also some unsettling statements, including...
- "Within the city, Boston University exudes a large presence as the city's fourth-largest employer" (I thought all the exuding was ended after Silber left.)
- "Surrounding the city are three major general aviation relievers: Beverly Municipal Airport to the north, Hanscom Field in Bedford, to the west, and Norwood Memorial Airport to the south." (I'm afraid to ask what a "reliever" is used for. Sounds nasty.)
- talk of "fluctuation of people", which sounds painful
I dont know if it should even be on this page, but the sentence On April 15, 2013, at approximately 14:50 ET the city suffered two bombings during the Boston Marathon, killing 3 and wounding 183 people. certainly does not belong where it currently is in the history section. The mention in the sports section is less out of place, but even then it seems given unnecessary weight. Maybe a sentence in the crime section instead. nableezy - 04:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the Boston Marathon bombings should be mentioned just once, and then linked to the very comprehensive article on the event. Tacking it onto the history hodgepodge section as it is now doesn't help. Perhaps we should look at how the New York City article handles the 9/11 attacks. Reify-tech (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The article has the pronunciation /ˈbɔːstən/ listed as an option for the city. I was under the impression that local pronunciation was the only one mentioned for a city and differences in other accents were ignored. The local pronunciation then would only be /ˈbɒstən/. Otherwise why wouldn't also include /ˈbɑstən/ for how Canadians and the Western US say it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weebro55 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the contents of Flag of Boston here as IMO that article doesn't merit being stand-alone (seriously, would anyone look up "Flag of Boston" rather than "Boston"?). I can't locate any reference from this article to F.O.B., but if there is one, it should be replaced with an intra-page reference. Chrismorey (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The section on History lists a peculiar set of colleges and universities, specifically, "Schools such as Boston University, the Harvard Medical School, Northeastern University, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Berklee College of Music and Boston Conservatory." Wentworth is a 3rd rate technical school that is largely a junior college. The Boston Conservatory is a very small school without the reputation of the much better known New England Conservatory of Music, which is also located in Boston. I suspect that people affiliated with these schools included their names in this section. Bostoner (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to invoke base motives. Lots of material in this article seems to be arbitrarily drawn from larger supersets. In many cases, such as this one, we'd probably need e.g. a "List of..." spinoff to list them all, or some criterion for which subset to include. Be my guest. EEng (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)