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

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

Initial impressions:

• Lead is too long. It can be further shortened to three or four paragraphs and must not have too many details, as they will be covered in the body later.
• There is a substantial amount of references, which seems to have solved the previous old issue from the previous GA review.
• May be helpful if there is a BRT system map, if applicable. There is a suffficent amount of images to illustrate the topic
• Overall, though, I find the article to be a bit too overwhelming with text. Like the lead for example (said in the first point). It may be helpful to cut down on text, and also create another history article to add more detail to the history prose.

--ZKang123 (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: It's been a week since your initial comments - are you still interested in this review? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will better close this review, when there are very little response to this. And I am not also fit to review articles as well; this is just an attempt. I hope I can pass this to someone else who is willing to review this.

Nevertheless, I strongly enocurage you to review my comments and also respond to any of them.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pi.1415926535 and ZKang123: I'll take a look and do a review of this later, if that's alright. Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes anyone can carry on with this. Good luck and thanks!--ZKang123 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

• First up: a SEVEN PARAGRAPH LEAD? It's not even that long an article. Please, cut this down to three or less.
  •  Partly done I have cut it down to four paragraphs per the guidance at MOS:LEADLENGTH.

Coverage[edit]

Illustration[edit]

• All images commons licensed
• Logo should be in infobox, not halfway down the body
  •  Not done This logo is no longer used and thus does not belong in the lede. It belongs in its current location - next to a paragraph that discusses the initial branding efforts.
• Route diagrams and maps included: talk page should be updated so it's not asking for maps anymore
  •  Not done While the route diagrams are fine for now, geographic maps would be a good eventual addition.
• Too many images. There doesn't need to be a photo of a bus running each route, because ultimately it's the same thing being illustrated: this is what a Silver Line bus looks like.
  • The power changeover image can be kept because it is discussed, but the SL2 and SL3 images below serve no purpose. Also, move the power changeover image up to be next to the text that discusses it.
  • SL5 and Melnea Cross Blvrd stop don't illustrate anything, either
  • The removal of the Elevated image and Trolleybus are discussed, so keep
  • South Station shelter is random, no purpose
  • Chelsea station isn't discussed, but it's relevant enough to the section so it works
  • Tremont Street subway is good - you get the idea? Images are great but don't add them at random
    •  Not done Seventeen images for a 7,000-word article is nowhere near excessive, and none of them are random. (How is an image of the South Station stop possibly "random" next to a paragraph that discusses service being extended to the stop?) Illustrating typical stop types and operating environments - both of which are discussed in the prose - is beneficial to the article. Because placing images opposite the route diagrams could cause sandwiching issues, images for the Routes section work best next to the variable-width table.
• Good use of tables to break down services
• I don't see any value added by the quote box - they generally take an important/significant quote, or one that is in some way a summary of the section, things like that. This one is quoting a minor complaint (out of the entire complaints section), and it's not even using any of the stated reasoning. It's actually a detriment to the article in how it presents what can really be called a whine as something worth framing. Surely the least of their concerns is a paint job and a name?
  •  Not done The quote (from a prominent community activist) is criticizing the MBTA for passing off the paint-and-branding effort as a real improvement, rather than the true bus rapid transit that was promised. That's not a minor complaint, but it is a good summary of the section.

Verifiability[edit]

• Selection of reliable sources
• Everything seems to have an inline citation
• Pass

Stability[edit]

• History looks clean
• Pass

Neutrality[edit]

Copyright[edit]

• Copyvio check looks clear enough
• Image licenses good
• Pass

Overall[edit]

• Will continue Kingsif (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pi.1415926535: I've started making more notes, would you be able to work on what's already posted or not?
  • Yes, I will be able to work on it today. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kingsif: I have shortened the lede, and responded to your other comments above.
      • @Pi.1415926535: Seeing as you disagree with my review, I see no reason to continue. Not in a mean way, but you haven't even suggested discussion and I feel I might make a full review for you to decide nothing needs to be done. I won't feel comfortable passing it without some of the changes already suggested to be implemented, so I'll put this back up for another reviewer. Kingsif (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry that you feel that way. I feel have given clear reasons - as a basis for discussion - why none of them would be improvements to the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vami's review[edit]

Hello~. I'll take it from here, but don't expect anything quick. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: Still interested in the review? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'll get on this tonight. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

• The parentheses'd text in Paragraph 2 should not exist, or it should be in a footnote.
  •  Done

Routes[edit]

• The first two paragraphs of and the bullet list at the top of "Waterfront" have no citations.
  •  Done (the cite at the end of the paragraph also covers the bullet list)
• Same for "Washington Street".
  •  Done
• (designated SLW) Unbold.
  •  Done
• to/from to or from.
  •  Done
• and overhauled in 2014–18. Overhauled from 2014 to 2018, this is a window of time greater than 12 months.
  •  Done
• Link the CharlieCard in "Waterfront", since it precedes "Washington Street".
  •  Done
• Instead of repeating the paragraph about the bus specifications, just put it under "Routes" along with more general information to fill it out.
  •  Partly done The two sections use different types of buses with different histories; there's no good way to combine. I've chopped some repeated words and wikilinks in the Washington Street section.

History[edit]

• Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) I assume this is the name the MBTA was founded under, but the article never refers to it as the MTA.
  •  Done added an aside in the next paragraph to clarify the MTA-->MBTA change
• that year, UMTA rejected the MBTA's First mention of whatever the UMTA is.
  •  Done
• the primary change was stop consolidation to stop consolidation?
  •  Done reworded.
• (Although the MBTA considered other stop locations, most of the final stops were at existing route 49 stops.) [...] (In November 2002, a twelfth stop at Worcester Square was restored.) Why are these in parentheses?
  •  Done
• (Such use of the third harbor tunnel to run express bus service to the airport had been proposed as early as 1968.) Remove, irrelevant.
  •  Not done I believe this is a relevant historical note.
    • It is relevant to the tunnel but not to the Silver Line. I can accept putting this into a footnote as a compromise. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vami IV: I'm not sure I agree, but I've placed it as a footnote (along with your other footnote recommendation). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (That figure includes the higher-than-expected cost of dual-mode buses, and part of the cost of the Southampton maintenance facility, but subtracts reimbursements from other projects.)[4]:16[38]:5 Put this into a footnote.
  •  Partly done trimmed it down; I'm hesitant to create a footnote section for just that.
• (BMIP) Axe; this acronym is never used.
  •  Done
• route 7 route had a more direct route Too many routes.
  •  Done
• The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approved the project for further planning than July. The FTA has already been linked and acronymed.
  •  Done
• – a rapid turnaround from its "high priority" rating in 2003 Remove.
  •  Not done I don't see any reason to.
    • It's redundant. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right you are, I forgot that it had been mentioned earlier. Removed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What's MassDOT?
  •  Done
• (the Chelsea commuter rail station) Delete.
  •  Partly done formatted a bit, but mentioning the commuter rail station is necessary context.
• revived in 2006 as part of Phase III plans. the Phase III plans.
  •  Done
• the plan had been made with consulting local officials. without consulting local officials?
  •  Done
• (In 2012, the Roxbury-Dorcester-Mattapan Transit Needs Study recommended the 28X bus to be implemented with no new infrastructure as an express bus adding additional trips to the corridor.) Remove these parentheses.
  •  Done
• Mattapan station is way overlinked.
  •  Done
• the cities of Everett and Somerville Link these.
  •  Done

• [...] Massport cancelled a planned people [...] What's Massport?
  • It's already wikilinked...?

Service[edit]

• intelligent transportation systems (ITS) This acronym is never used.
  •  Done
• [...] average dwell time over one minute [...] Add an "of" before "over".
  •  Done
• [...] and violations of the exclusive lanes are rarely enforced. Rarely prosecuted. "Enforced" makes the violations sound mandatory.
  •  Done
• [...] normally restricted for use by Massachusetts State Police and MassDOT maintenance vehicles [...] the Massachusetts State Police
  •  Done
• A 2010 study indicated that the ramp was safe to used for the Silver Line. Safe enough to be used.
  •  Done Reworded.

References[edit]

References are credible. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation [2] is missing an access date.
  •  Done
• Citations [35] and [36] are missing page numbers.
  •  Partly done [35] is just to establish the release of the report and doesn't need pagination; added pages for [36].
    • Change to Template:Cite web?
      • I'm not sure how that would be any use. ((cite web)) doesn't support the chapter parameter.
• Citations [80], [81], [84], and [98] are missing the "journal" parameter.
  •  Not done These are theses published directly by the university, not in a journal, so they should be fine as is.
    • Change to Template:Cite web?
      •  Done Converted to ((cite thesis)). (A note: it wasn't clear at first that this was in reference to the CS1 errors.)
• Citations [1], [8], [22], [29], [28], [46], [58], [91], [94], [108], [114], [119], [127], [133], [140], [141], and [142] are all broken or errors, and [12] and [59] are redirects.
  •  Partly done Fixed [59]. Links [1], [8], [22], [29], [46], [58], [91], [94], [108], [114], [119], [127], [133], [140], [141], and [142] are all fully functional - I just individually checked them. (Checklinks sometimes returns errors on certain functional websites; in these cases, it's the cdn.mbta.com subdomain and the Boston Globe paywall that seem to be the issue.) [28] and [12] are intentional redirects for stability - [28] because it's a permalink to the current map, and [12] in case the host service is changed.
• Citation [87] is broken outright.
  •  Done

GA progress[edit]

Images are relevant and free/tagged. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed