Talk:Citi Bike/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 12:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a - The prose is mostly clear and well-written. Only one comment: "Walder said the compant would appoint a VP" - be careful about WP:CRYSTAL, generally even if it is published in WP:RS, we avoid repeating speculation/rumours about things that have not yet happened.

1b - currently the lede appears to be written more in news style then encylcopedic style (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Comparison_to_the_news-style_lead), please consider expanding it.

2b- Is Streetsblog something we would consider WP:RS? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

2d - this seems to be verbatim from the source "an increased sponsorship commitment from Citi of up to $70.5 million extended through 2024, and a $15 million increase in the credit facility from the Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group" - I'm not sure this could be called COPYVIO, since it is not creative language and does not express any original ideas, but is only a recitation of facts — but please consider adding quotation marks and attribution to this statement anyway. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Seraphim System: Thank you for reviewing this article as well. I have cleaned up the lead per 1b. For 2b, I think Streetsblog is only good for the opinion, so I will try to find other RS. epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 1a: Since the VP was appointed (but the only source was Streetsblog) so I paraphrased to reflect that it was the plan at the time to appoint a VP.
  • 1b:  Done Expanded lead.
  • 2b: i plan to find alternate sources soon.
  • 2d:  Done paraphrased. epicgenius (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Seraphim System: I found some alternative sources for Streetsblog. It looks like it does fit RS, since it's not strictly a blog (It is operated by OpenPlans, a transportation non-profit). I will keep looking for more sources, but for now Streetsblog seems to be a consistent source for information on Citi Bike expansions, and it doesn't seem to be blatantly POV or promotional. epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think Streetsblog meets the requirement for WP:RS — I have not been able to find a single secondary source use, which is one way that we usually evaluate WP:RS. Otherwise, I think the lede is much better and it is ready to go. I would be glad to re-review if you ping me once you've found alternate sourcing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Seraphim System: I've removed Streetsblog as a RS. It is only used to reference Streetsblog commentary now in the "Complaints" section as well as another commentary regarding stall spacing. It's no longer used to source anything that can be claimed as fact, and this should solve the RS issue. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

OK I've changed to pass, I don't think it needs to go through a full renomination, I don't think this should be a problem since Legobot doesn't add to the GA list, but if I've made a mistake here we can just do a second a review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)