Talk:Capital Bikeshare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Capital Bikeshare has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Cycling (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Mid-importance).
 

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A (prose):
    "Capital Bikeshare replaced SmartBike DC" - this is vague and could mean a number of different things.
    More wikilinks - United States Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, etc.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Expand lead to include current tennants.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Fn 2, 4, 12, 15 and 16 need publishers. Fn. 17 needs an access date.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Explain why DC area would be ripe for such a service. For example, is it because of a pre-existing network of bike routes as well as bike-friendly public transportation? There must be some sources which address this.
    Explain who "owns" CABi? If it is controlled by a Board, how is the Board selected and what is its size:?
    "The program was a public-private partnership between the District of Columbia Department of Transportation and the advertising firm Clear Channel Outdoor." - from the SmartBike article. Can we make a similar statement about CaBi?
    Explain who will pay the ongoing subsidy after the grant runs out.
    Have there been any follow up news stories documenting public acceptance?
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    File:CapitalBikeshare Logo.jpg - your fair use rationale is adequate. But it is not clear to me who actually owns CaBi, and if it is a federal agency, this may be a free image under a different rationale.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article represents significant work by its author, but a few points need further work. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed the issues raised here as best as I can with the available sources. I look forward to your comments. Best, epicAdam(talk) 04:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job. Thank you for your work and congratulations on the Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Nothing against the organization itself, but this article is typical of the corporate advertising fluff that increasingly populates Wikipedia. Moynihanian (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)