The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [1].
There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.
I left a notice on the article talk page on September 27, and nothing changed with respect to the article, so it's time to move things here. The account for the original FA nominator (SPUI) has been inactive for years, so notifying that editor is a futile endeavor. I am placing the customary notifications on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages. Imzadi 1979→ 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will rehash the points I brought up at the ACR that touch upon the issues with the article, which include many minor and some major issues:
"bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
"federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
"Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
"In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
"NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
"In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
References 3 and 103 are dead links.
The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to suggestions above:
"bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
Not doneCategory:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type
The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining
"federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ
Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
Done countless road articles, including most in Category:FA-Class U.S. Highway system articles route description mention places w/o references; why here? Many appear to be from observations taken from maps and satellite imagery; info is pertinent, while pertinent, is non-esstenial, thus parenthetical. Nonetheless refs added.
Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
Not done please do so, though
"Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"
The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written
Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
Done removed
The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
Done fixed
"In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence
Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with Wikipedia:DATED
The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
Done split
"NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
Done fixed
"In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
Done fixed Per source: "Construction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet." at end of the same added
References 3 and 103 are dead links.
Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link
The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
DoneMap focus supports statement: Google Maps includes the Route 139 eastern approach.Google (October 16, 2010). "Jersey City, NJ" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
Done location= Hoboken, NJ added
Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
Done removed
Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source.
Done removed
Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate that everything above is ignoring some fundamental issues with the article, and unless those issues are discussed, we're just doing work to text that will end up trimmed, summarized or even outright deleted. Imzadi 1979→ 09:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to above:
There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
but bit of a non-issue since many FA articles are continually be edited such, as Statue of Liberty, a FA with lt more hits than Pulaski Skyway, has had 120 revisions since October 2014; this article has had 56; but the point is, especially since you mention:
There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
which would make sense since that time, the specifics of it the reconstruction have come to light as has the political backlash for it's funding
The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
which which is long and would make sense since, as mentioned above, Pulaski Skyway#Rehabilitation covers a $billion reconstruction of the which is no small undertaking; it covers the reasons why it's being rebuilt, how it's being re-built, the alternatives to traffic while it's being re-built, and the political scandal that springs from the funding. While there is no WP:UNDUE issues (do you contend that there are differing points of view about the facts being presented/), can you be specific as to why it is too long and what should be removed?
There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues,
but the last edit made by that person was in April 2014: 140 revisions ago & the work has greatly changed since then.
Your statements, while clear, do not address improvements to the article with regard to content, style, and structure. Without specific concerns as to what appears Wikipedia:Published in the Wikipedia:Namespace, there seems little to be done with your concerns. Can you please state exactly what is wrong with the with the article in regard to Wikipedia:Content policiesDjflem (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. The paragraph on tolls looks incomplete: the last sentence should have a source or explain why tolls were not implemented. I'm not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue, given that not much appears to have happened in the history of the skyway: it was built, it stood, cars drove over it, it was shut for repairs, etc. Once the design and construction is covered, there's only a limited amount one can write about what happened during its years of use. As work on the article seems to have stalled, without obvious consensus on the article's status, I think we have to move to declarations. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear why you have moved this to FARC. The article is not stalled. You will note that where specific issues have been brought up, they have been addressed. Other commentary has been about "concerns" which have not been articulated in a way that express any reasoning for what the specific problem/solution is or have been thoughts or opinions based on personal taste. Other observation and broad generalisations have not been constructive or instructive about making improvements to the article. As seen above, the editor who suggested other changes has been asked to clarify on this page what their wishes are and to react to responses given to those wishes. (By the way, those concerns were never brought to the article talk page, where they should been hashed-out. They were presented as an afterthought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, a closed discussion was posted there). The editor has time to do so, so the lack of response IS consensus. I have waited for answers to questions as to how to handle statements for which are no sources to verify, but none have been forthcoming, and therefore, they have been removed. Any discussion about the claims about UNDUE cannot be talked about without there being an rationale as why they are being made, which has not been offered, thus not fulfilling the criteria for a to proceed from FAR to FARC.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - While many of the minor concerns I brought up were addressed, there are still major concerns with the article that need to be touched upon for this to remain a FA, including the undue weight given to the rehabilitation, unsourced information, and poor structure. Since it seems no one wants to address the major issues, we need to move this article to FARC. Dough4872 15:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to be more specific than the vague statement you have made above as you are stating opinion, but not backing it up with anything substantive. It appears most the items you brought up have been dealt with. Others are just a matter of preference for a writing style, which is a perogative. Please explain which issues are not addressed and why they should be, particularly in regard to the following. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section. Please explain why it would be better to present the material as you propose; otherwise your claims of improvement cannot be considered constructive. Also, please explain what and why you find the rehabilitation section has undue weight, citing exactly what you are talking about, as is stated above you have not "not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue".Djflem (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC—the only progress here so far is some minor polishing and window dressing, yet substantive issues related to weight of coverage remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any interest in tackling those substantive issues, so I don't foresee this remaining as a FA at this time. Imzadi 1979→ 19:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't move to FARC Inappropriate at this time since no explanation, justification, or rationale has been given to any of the claims made re:substantive issues on this or Talk:Pulaski Skyway. As stated per Wikipedia:Featured article review
The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
This has not happened. Firstly, there is conflict with regards to [[Wikipedia:UNDUE as there are no opposing point of view about the simple facts presented. Further, the comments made do not provide for changes that are actionable, as explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions. Djflem (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem: we generally only conclude Review sections as Keep if it is striaghtforward. Moving it here doesn't mean it is demoted, but it can undergo a more protracted editing period to ensure it gets sufficient time to be worked on (sometimes months...) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear. So why move an article it to FARC if the review is not complete? If there are concerns they should be expressed by those who have them in such a way that other editors can address them, no? Djflem (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The main substantive criticism was the weight of the more recent section, but as I said above, I'm not convinced that the section is undue, given that the skyway has little history to describe other than its construction and repair. The other points raised are essentially arguable either way. I do think that the article is weak because it introduces material, such as the bill to raise tolls, but then doesn't build on or explain that. I suspect that the bill failed and so that's why tolls were never introduced but this is left hanging in the article because there are no sources (that I can find) that actually tell us what happened next. Similarly, we are told that in 1952 some trucks drove onto the skyway, but the paragraph covering that basically sits by itself and doesn't fit easily into the narrative flow, in my opinion. This style of writing can be typical of more esoteric topics, because there is so little material to gather, the article ends up being a hash of individual snippets rather than a flowing story. I am not saying that this material should be cut, only that the subject matter does not lend itself easily to good prose. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DrKay. The narrative is not entirely brilliant, but I'm not sure it could be such given the material and sources. I'm aware that the weight issue is contentious, but I'm not convinced it's dire enough for delisting. --Laser brain(talk) 12:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's listed at WP:URFA. It's taken me a while, mostly due to RL commitments, to check it for sources and to improve its prose, but I feel it's ready for an FAR. I haven't notified any other users, since I'm the main editor of this article, although I did notify the appropriate wikiproject. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick comments, and please double check my edits/summaries (I'll try to have a look through the rest another time) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC):[reply]
"For example, Angelou was worried about her readers' reactions to her disclosure in her second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name, that she was a prostitute. She went through with it, anyway, after her husband Paul Du Feu advised her to be honest about it.[36]" Do you have an example from Caged Bird? I worry that you're drifting too far from the topic.
I understand your objection, but I think that this should stay. It supports the assertion in the previous sentence, that Angelou was a pioneer of self-disclosure, and provides an example of it. I realize that Du Feu's advice occurred after Caged Bird, and in connection to another autobiography, but I think it provides comprehensiveness. I'm not unwilling to accept your direction, though.
"Angelou's editor, Robert Loomis, agrees, stating that she could rewrite any of her books by changing the order of her facts to make a different impact on the reader." You say this at least twice, and you link to the article on Loomis several times.
Actually, just twice, but you're right of course, so I removed it in the "Style and genre" section. I did a little restructuring of the article for this FAR, so the redundancy is an artifact of it. Thanks for the catch.
"For example, Maya responds assertively to the demeaning treatment by her white employer Mrs. Cullinan and later on in the book, breaks the race barrier to become the first black streetcar operator in San Francisco." Are you missing a word or two here?
Um, I don't think so. Could you please make the correction you think should be made? Then I'd know what you think is missing.
I think the meaning is clear- my worry is solely a grammatical one. I think it's the fact that the victim of the "demeaning treatment" is not made clear. How about (I've also played with commas) "For example, Maya responds assertively when subjected to demeaning treatment by Mrs. Cullinan, her white employer, and, later on in the book, breaks the race barrier to become the first black streetcar operator in San Francisco." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"with an ear for dialogue—a good listener with a rich oral heritage. Hagen also insists that Angelou's years of muteness provided her with this skill." Reference? Also, I think this is a little non-neutral.
It's a paraphrase of Hagen (p. 19). I added the ref at the end of the sentence. I could include the entire quote if you like.
I think it's a little critical to say in Wikipedia's "neutral" "voice", so a direct quote may be beneficial. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, thanks for the copyedit and for your comments. Waiting for additional comments, but there's no hurry with the time of year and all. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Critic Pierre A. Walker agrees" This is quite a claim- he literally agrees that Caged Bird is "perhaps the most aesthetically satisfying autobiography written in the years immediately following the Civil Rights era"? (Also, grammatically, you're claiming that he agrees that it has been called that- surely not the claim you want to make. You could change it to something like "expresses a similar sentiment".)
Great suggestion! I've changed the phrase as per your request. I looked at the source again, and I think that the case could be made that Caged Bird is aesthetically satisfying, since he categorizes it as "high art". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
""heralded the success of other now prominent [black women] writers"" Do you mean Black? Or are you meaning something slightly different? I know that some writers do this, but it's not going to be familiar to the majority of Wikipedia's readers.
The original source did make a connection between Black women's literature and the success of "now prominent writers". Perhaps I made the connection too strong, so I changed the wording to better reflect the source: "...and was a significant development in Black women's literature in that it "heralded the success of other now prominent writers". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In one of the few negative reviews of Caged Bird," Do you have a source for the claim that it's one of the few negative reviews? If not, perhaps you could change this to something like "the book's reception has not been universally positive"
Well, there's no source for your version, but I went ahead and changed it, anyway. I think there's some room in encyclopedic writing for making connections that are obvious but not specifically sourced, as long as it's done sparingly. I believe this is one instance of that.
"Dr. Jocelyn A. Glazier, a professor at George Washington University, has used" I am not clear on why she gets a "Dr." and "professor at x" when everyone else just gets "scholar"
Yah, others have given that same feedback about using titles. I guess we missed that one. I think that I used Glazier's job because her article is specifically about training teachers at a university setting. I removed the "Dr." but I think it's appropriate to keep her job. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the discussion of the film belongs in the censorship section; it should probably be given its own section, or else added to a modified "influence" section.
Hmm, it has, in the past. How the heck did that happen? Perhaps I accidentally removed it when working on the Censorship section. Fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For both style and copyright reasons, I think a straightforward cover scan would be preferable to the side-on view currently used.
Okay, changed.
Is there a particular reason you do not use an infobox?
There's no infobox because when we worked on this article, several of us were philosophically opposed to infoboxes. At the time, I agreed, but my position has softened a bit since. I still think they're ugly and not always necessary, but I've come to get their purposes. I can insert one, but remember that the article passed FAC without it, and there's nothing in the FA criteria that requires them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A very readable article- I learned a lot. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Although this article was one of my first FACs, it was a foundational experience for me and I'm very proud of it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A beautiful article, I definitely see no reason for it to be delisted or this review to remain open. I did come across a few minor things with the prose that I thought I'd ask about:
Tense switch: "She placed herself back in the time she is writing about"
Switch from one's to their: "the title pulls Angelou's readers into the book while reminding them that it is possible to both lose control of one's life and to have their freedom taken from them."
Above two fixed.
"...always saying I meaning 'we'". Is this how it's written in the source, with quotations around the 'we' but not the 'I'? Just checking.
Yes, that's exactly how it was written; Angelou taking poetic license.
"Scholar Joanne M. Braxton sees Caged Bird as an example of the autobiographies written by African-American women in the years following the civil rights movement." Well, obviously it's 'an example'--any one of the books would be an example. Maybe an exemplar? Or "sees it as exemplifying"? or "typifying"?
Improved via direct quote.
"Angelou has never admitted to changing the facts in her stories..." The first part of this para quotes her admitting that.
I respectfully disagree. The first sentence of the paragraph states that she recognizes that there are fictional aspects to her writing and that she uses autobiography differently.
File:Angeloupoem.jpg might be better right aligned so she's not facing off of the page.
Done. Moved other images and quoteboxes accordingly.
This sentence is difficult to read since it looks like "Momma becomes less effective as Maya": "The two main maternal influences on Maya's life change as well; Vivian becomes a more active participant, while Momma becomes less effective as Maya, by becoming a mother herself, moves from childhood to adulthood." Maybe a pair of m dashes?
You're right, of course. Changed to: "The two main maternal influences on Maya change as well; Vivian becomes a more active participant in Maya's life than Momma, while Maya, by becoming a mother herself, moves from childhood to adulthood."
Inconsistent capitalization of 'Black': "the strong and cohesive black community of Stamps". Sorry if there's some reason for this I'm unaware of.
This is a long-standing usage for this article and other Angelou articles; see here [3]. When a quote is used, I retained that author's use.
"Hagen also characterize Caged Bird" characterized? characterizes?
Perhaps split this sentence? Or some conjunction: "Caged Bird catapulted Angelou to international fame and critical acclaim, was a significant development in Black women's literature in that it "heralded the success of other now prominent writers"." Also it's a bit oddly placed in the middle of a para otherwise full of individual critics' specific statements.
Separated and improved; perhaps it reads better now.
Might the reception section flow better with the paras slightly rearranged? It's currently: Acclaim, Awards, Positive reviews, Sales, Negative reception. How about instead: Acclaim, Awards, Sales, Positive reviews, Negative reception. I also suggest the sentence starting "Caged Bird catapulted Angelou to international fame" move from the middle of Positive reviews to Acclaim.
Um, again I respectfully disagree. The structure of the reception section has been discussed and analyzed, and been through several FACs to arrive at its current structure. IOW, to be a little more rude, you're the only person who has suggested this kind of structure. I support remaining with consensus.
This sentence seems tacked on out of place at the end of the school censorship para: "Some have been critical of its sexually explicit scenes, use of language, and irreverent religious depictions." What if you reversed the order of the 2 paras in Censorship, and put that sentence at the end of the general censorship para? Actually it might make sense to combine those paras too, since the general one is just a sentence.
Overall a great read and no problems that would merit delisting. delldot∇. 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it; I just spaced because things have been busy IRL. Thanks for the reminder. I'll try and get to this before the end of the weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, no hurry at all, just checking! delldot∇. 20:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, every point is addressed except the last. Also now ref 33 reads, "Cite error: The named reference brzton-64 was invoked but never defined". Great work overall! delldot∇. 02:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be traveling and may not have internet access (don't know yet); once Maralia is satisfied, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott DavisTalk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review
Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
instead of:
Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
Sentences should not start with numbers.
Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
And ???
In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123(parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott DavisTalk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review response
Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.
I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.
Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott DavisTalk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott DavisTalk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update
The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
(author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,
Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007
has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)
Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...
Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)
"developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.
This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, getting better. I removed three external links (one was about transport in Adelaide generally; another was a personal website that had only 3 images; and the last literally did not mention the O-Bahn). I also took care of the rest of the citation formatting. Agree that some prose work is still needed, but this is getting close. I've struck my delist comment above. Thanks for your work, ScottDavis; just a little more tightening for clarity, along the lines of SG's "Prose" list immediately above. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottDavis: Thanks for taking care of the specific issues mentioned above. This is getting close to ready, but the prose isn't quite there yet. I undertook a major rewrite of the Planning section in an attempt to demonstrate a more logical flow. I still think this article would benefit from a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Maralia: I have read through and tweaked a few phrases, but I suspect I've reached the limit of my ability. The "Expansion proposals" section feels very long and somewhat incidental. It also seems to assume a fair bit of knowledge of Adelaide landmarks and geography. To someone reading from further away, does the article lose anything significant by deleting the heading and first three paragraphs of that section? --Scott DavisTalk 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have stalled, but while the issues with the original article at the time of its writing seem to generally have been fixed, I think it's out of date. There is no mention of the extension in the lede, and gets all of two sentences in the article, which seems drastically short since it's both politically controversial and probably the signature public transport policy of this term of the Weatherill government. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for not putting any more about the current proposal to extend is that it is currently still only a proposal. I agree there could be an update that there are now four versions of the proposal in 2015, but it doesn't belong in the lead until it is actually happening; there have been many other proposals that have not eventuated. The political controversy probably belongs just as much in Rymill Park or Weatherill government. I need help from someone else to polish the text further, as FA-standard text is not what I usually practice. --Scott DavisTalk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand it not going in the lede on that basis, but there still needs to be more details in the relevant section of the article since it is a significant political issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the quality of the text is fine.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no substantive delist votes remaining. DrKay (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
ozroads.com.au is a self-published source.
Last two sentences of the second paragraph of Development not sourced
First paragraph of Buses is not sourced
The article would really benefit from a map of the route
I would expect a more detailed route desription for the busway – from one end of it to the other, describe the direction it travels in, features it passes, type of development around it, suburbs it goes through, etc. See the route descriptions of Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway, Forrest Highway for some examples of how a route from point A to point B can be described – readers should be able have a basic idea of what a journey on the route is like.
The Route table, which uses {{AUSinttop}}, can have an interchange column turned on. This will allow the location column to be used for the actual suburbs, which is its purpose.
Does any reference show the distances ad being exactly 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 km? If not, don't use a false precision.
Converted speed limits should be rounded to the nearest 5 – the extra precision doesn't serve any purpose for readers
In terms of structure/organisation, I would usually put a description-type section first, before a history-type section. This allows readers, especially those not familiar with the subject or area, to understand more of and have some context of what is discussed in the history section.
The lead is meant to summarise the article, and so there shouldn't be information in there that isn't in the rest of the article – I don't see O-Bahn etymology, passenger capacity, operated by Light-City Buses, and current passenger numbers elsewhere in the article.
The lead seems quite short and an inadequate summary of the article – whole sections aren't mentioned at all (Effects on local development, Environment).
Has an infobox been considered? {{Infobox rail line}} has some appropriate fields, and allows ones that aren't applicable to be skipped. The route diagram could also go in the infobox.
Those are the more major issues issues I can see – I haven't done a full check for MOS or other minor/copyediting issues. - Evad37[talk] 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to attempt to address all of those at once tonight, but am making a start...
OzRoads is a secondary reference for two points about the MATS plan, the text probably is suitable by just removing it, but they are offline sources difficult to access.
It appears the unreferenced sentences were referenced until a significant copyedit in April seems to have just dropped the reference, so I have put it back.
I've cited the first sentence of that paragraph, haven't found a WP:RS for the rest yet.
I've tried making a few maps for Wikipedia, but my computer system is not really up to the job yet. I think the SA roads datasets has the relevant data with a suitable licence. I hope to get a suitable computer within 12 months.
I've learned a new parameter for {{convert}} - thanks :-)
Route table, lead and infobox can wait for another session.
@ScottDavis: and @Jj98:, do you feel you've covered all of @Evad37:'s issues raised above. I don't think leaving this open a few more weeks is a problem if we are in striking distance of keep territory. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the nudge @Casliber:. I had thought I had addressed @Evad37:'s issues, but have made a couple of new edits to the lead section after looking with fresh eyes today. The "O-Bahn City Access Project" also now addresses comments from @SandyGeorgia: months ago, and @The Drover's Wife: before any certainty that the extension would go ahead this time. --Scott DavisTalk 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2016
@SandyGeorgia:@DrKay:@Maralia:@Evad37:@Casliber: Could I please have an update on this? It has been open for review for almost a year, and I have done what I am capable of. I'd like an opinion on the two sets of route numbers (in the route table, and again with brightly coloured numbers just below). I'm not sure if either is practically maintainable, and don't know the source of the pretty colours for the route numbers (I did not add that bit, it appeared about a week ago). --Scott DavisTalk 12:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have cross-referenced instead of duplicated the list. Hopefully someone will accept that we have saved this FA and close the review soon. Thank you everyone for your help and guidance. --Scott DavisTalk 10:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the article now, and my issues have been resolved, so I can declare keep(and sorry about the lengthy delay) - Evad37[talk] 13:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Drover's Wife raised a concern about the lead. It seems to me that the last sentence of the third para of the lead is out of date. Maybe it should say something like: "There are no active proposals to extend the route, although an extension at the city end was formerly proposed to reduce the number of congested intersections buses must traverse to enter the Adelaide city centre."--Grahame (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is a summary of the section "O-Bahn City Access Project". There is a current project to excavate a tunnel through the parklands. A contract has been let (ref 56 at the moment), however I have no evidence of actual on-site construction yet (but have not passed the site for a while, either). The trouble with a long review period is that the extension was only proposed since the beginning of the review, and had several quite different iterations before the one that has been settled on. The current plan was documented on 22 July, and the section separated from other proposals on 3 November. --Scott DavisTalk 23:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how about: "A contract has been let for an extension at the city end that will reduce the number of congested intersections buses must traverse to enter the Adelaide city centre; this is due to open in 2017."--Grahame (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that wording, so have put it in the article. I expect that there will be able to be an update to say construction has started some time in the next month or so. --Scott DavisTalk 21:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the following reasons, which I originally brought up on the talk page without any response:
"The main issue I have is the current plot section. I counted fifteen passages detailing the entire story of Megatokyo, without any kind of sources. I've placed the two tags there a while ago, but barely any change seems to have been made. I don't know if WikiProject Comics has a specific guideline for this, but judging from other WikiProjects, I don't believe we would need more than five paragraphs to explain the comic's plot. I usually find that you only need to explain the plot as well as the reliable sources do.
Other issues I have are as follows:
I have a hard time imagining that this entire sentence can be verified using primary sources without it being original research. Has Gallagher described these influences in comments or something along those lines, or are trope-savvy people simply pointing out what they're seeing? I'm talking about this:
"a Japanese school girl, Yuki, who has also started being a magical girl in recent comics;[38] and Ping, a robot girl.[39] In addition, Dom and Ed, hitmen employed by Sega and Sony, respectively, are associated with a Japanese stereotype that all Americans are heavily armed.[40]"
Is the following part notable? It is only supported by a primary source, so I have no idea whether "anyone cares". I'm talking about the following:
"Characters in Megatokyo usually speak Japanese, although some speak English, or English-based l33t. Typically, when a character is speaking Japanese, it is signified by enclosing English text between angle brackets (<>)"
In the "Some critics, such as Eric Burns ..." paragraph in the reception section, it can be unclear what is and isn't supported by the "You Had Me And You Lost Me" source. Did Burns point out the "Shirt Guy Dom" strip or is this original research?
Though not necessary, it may be possible to split the references to primary sources and those to secondary sources, such as how it's done in xkcd. This would make it easier to judge the quality of the sources at a glance, but I suppose it's more a personal preference.
That's what I got for now. The bloated plot section is the biggest issue, though, and I hope someone could fix that."
Simply judging from WP:FACR, I'm worried that the plot section consists entirely of original research (1c) and goes into unnecessary detail (4). Megatokyo was promoted to FA in 2006 – back when Wikipedia was less strict – and it is currently the only webcomics-related article that is Featured class. I hope these issues can be fixed, rather than the article being delisted. ~Mable (chat) 10:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maplestrip, are you willing to trim the plot section? I don't think I'm understanding why you didn't just trim it if you thought it needed trimming. Plot sections don't require citations unless something is controversial or disputed. The rest seem like pretty easy fixes. --Laser brain(talk) 15:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a few years worth of the comic, and am still not really sure how to trim the plot section can be trimmed. I mean, I could probably sum it up to just the first chapter and change the section's title to "setting", but is that appropriate? And there's just such a variety of issues that I don't think I can fix it. I don't own the Megatokyo book, and I feel like the references should be looked through either way. There are a few dead links, a few with no publisher listed (for example: "An interview with Fred Gallagher" and "Manga Review: Megatokyo Volume 1") and there are so many primary sources used that I don't even know anymore what is and isn't notable. Getting this article to GA status would take some work, but I suppose I could do it if I put in the effort (save for the plot section, which I'm bad at). I'm definitely not planning on trying to get this to FA quality... Other things:
Following Gallagher's complete takeover of Megatokyo, the comic's thematic relation to Japanese manga continued to grow.[citation needed]
Megatokyo's fans have been called "some of the most patient and forgiving in the webcomic world."[by whom?]
Poking fun at this, Jerry "Tycho" Holkins of Penny Arcade has claimed to have "gotten on famously" with Gallagher, ever since he "figured out that [Gallagher] legitimately detests himself and is not hoisting some kind of glamour."[75][clarification needed]
The article just really hasn't aged well, and I'm not very good with working on articles like that... ~Mable (chat) 16:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense! It is indeed challenging to work on these when the primary authors are checked out. Thanks for the response. --Laser brain(talk) 17:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. No-one working on it. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns raised in the review section largely centred on original research and excessive detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Tagged for unsourced material, needing additional references, dead links, and plot summary needing attention. DrKay (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Not doneCategory:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type
Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ
