Talk:86 (MBTA bus)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Caleb M1 (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Fails parts of criteria 1,2 and 3.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Barely fails. Can be fixed with small edits.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Overall, this article fails on sources. The range of sources included is narrow and the entire lead is unreferenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * On coverage, this is a close fail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV is seldom an issue with regards to bus routes.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) This article needs to have a 'see also', it needs to have its lead cited, and it needs to stay on topic when describing history:
 *  Fail Second Opinion:

I understand this is your first GA review, but it is neither accurate nor complete. GA reviews are to check compliance with the GA criteria; they should not reflect personal preferences. You have not provided any justification for a quick fail, which means you need to do a full review and allow me to respond to them. If you do not wish to do a full review, please ask for a new reviewer at WT:GAN.

With regards to some of your specific points: Neither the GA criteria nor MOS:CITELEAD require citations in the lead, except for specific items like direct quotations and controversial statements; the entire lede of this article consists of information already cited in the body of the article. For citations in the article as a whole, the GA criteria specify that all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. There is no requirement for "range of sources".

The western portion of route 86 is the former route 63; the history of route 86 necessarily includes the history of route 63, and it is not tangential. There is no requirement for articles to have a See also section. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I just now asked for a second opinion to guide me through my first GA review. You are probably right about what not to do, I just need help on what to do. Thank you for your feedback. 00:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Caleb M1 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pi.1415626535 Before second opinion shows up, I must plead most of your allegations that I have misreviewed this article to be true. I realize that I have misread the overall GA instructions and MOS:BOLDLEDE, and you have given a convincing explanation on why the history of Route 63 was not tangential.
 * With regards to sources, I do recant my statement about the range of sources. What I cannot recant, is the statement that the lead lacks citation. MOS:CITELEAD says "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads". Had the lead contained nothing but general, common knowledge of the route, I would have retracted that requirement. Unfortunately, this article's lead include statistics, which are part of Good Article Criteria 2b.
 * Article Criteria 1 requires adherence to MOS: Layout, which lists the "see also" section as a "standard appendices and footer". There is no indication that it is optional, for MOS: Layout compliance.
 * Overall, I now admit that quick-failing it was a mistake, and so would failing it only on what I have found sofar. The instructions recommend that noobs get a second opinion. That said, the only 4 other second opinion requests are more than a week old, so I am wondering if there is any other place I could get outside input. I'm thinking either WP:THIRD if I can call this a content dispute, or WP:Teahouse if I can still call myself a "new editor". I'll go ahead and wait a week and complete this as much as I can in the meantime, and after a week I'll get creative as to where to get outside help.
 * I dutifully apologize for the overall way I reviewed this article. Caleb M1 (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice regarding other GA aspects, there should be no material in the lead which is not mentioned elsewhere in the content, where it should be properly referenced. This is why the lead does not usually need refs. There is no harm in having refs in the lead, it is generally a matter of personal style. If the same material is adequately referenced elsewhere in the content, it is not up to the reviewer to decide that it must also be referenced in the lead.
 * A "see also" section is optional. If it serves no useful purpose it can be left out. Also not the reviewer's prerogative to decide, though reasonable arguments for and against inclusion may be made.
 * The reviewer should provide actionable criticism. For example, On coverage, this is a close fail. is not actionable. Why is it a close fail? What is missing? How can it be fixed? Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My coverage issue was staying on topic with regards to history, which Pi adressed. Given that all of my initial reasons for failing have been debunked, is there anything I need to do to make this GA review more complete, or can I go ahead and give it a pass? Caleb M1 (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My coverage issue was staying on topic with regards to history, which Pi adressed. Given that all of my initial reasons for failing have been debunked, is there anything I need to do to make this GA review more complete, or can I go ahead and give it a pass? Caleb M1 (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

86 (MBTA bus) 2nd Opinion
Starts GA 2nd Opinion; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. Hope to start soon,   --Whiteguru (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Criteria 

Observations

 * Lede reads fine, if a little over-referenced in the first para.
 * I am not sure that Boston needs a link.
 * Route, History and Service seem to be common headings for GA bus transportation articles.
 * In the infobox, you are setting daily ridership (2018) using a 1974 document? The year 2018 gets one mention on page 48.
 * ✅ Good catch.
 * We need to source the correct ridership records. Is this Reference 4?
 * MOS:REPEATLINK applies. Where a topic or town or name has been linked once, it is not linked thereafter in articles. So you will be needing to remove duplicate links.
 * I've removed one duplicate link in the prose. REPEATLINK allows links from the lede to be repeated once in the prose, which is what I've done.
 * I've removed one duplicate link in the prose. REPEATLINK allows links from the lede to be repeated once in the prose, which is what I've done.


 * Shorten the heading Route Details to Route (to maintain conformity with other GA Bus transportation articles)
 * Sullivan Square and Sullivan Square Station appear to be the same location. May I have an explanation?
 * Sullivan Square is the name of an intersection (which is no longer square) and the sub-neighborhood surrounding it. Sullivan Square station is a metro station near Sullivan Square.
 * Sullivan Square is the name of an intersection (which is no longer square) and the sub-neighborhood surrounding it. Sullivan Square station is a metro station near Sullivan Square.


 * With regard to Bus transportation, where there has been prior transport by way of horse-drawn trolley and electric street-car trolley, these have been covered, where the history is available.
 * The coverage of horse-drawn and electric trolley lines might deserve a little more clarity. This could be improved from a dot point list.
 * I'm not sure what can be done to improve it - I think it's easier to understand the four separate segments as a bulleted list rather than paragraphs.


 * The second last sentence in this article needs to be included in the lede. It is a significant summary of the current state of this route and its service.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Page created 11 June 2005
 * Page has had 39 edits by 20 editors
 * Majority of edits to this page occurred during 2021
 * 90 day page views = 244 pages with a daily average of 3 views.
 * no edit warring is observed in the page history


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:MBTA route 86 bus at Cleveland Circle, May 2017.JPG = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Captioning is appropriate.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86_(MBTA_bus)#/map/0 = Wikimedia Commons map; good work, don't see this often;
 * File:Market Street at Wexford Street, Brighton, October 1930.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Captioning is appropriate.
 * File:MBTA route 86 bus at Sullivan station, July 2006.jpg = the copyright holder of this work, released this work into the public domain. OK. Captioning is appropriate.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Not having a grasp of the street layout in Boston and the number of places by name "Union Square" along an axis called Cambridge Road makes comprehension difficult. Nonetheless a good attempt at delivering and naming locations in relation to this route has been done. There is an amount of duplicate links that need to be removed, and we need to sort the origin of the ridership statistics.
 * I am not rendering comments yea or nay on the initial review except to pass an observation that the Lead is not normally populated with references. The lead introduces themes and matters to come in the article; the details are in the sections, normally.
 * Attention to the matters raised above - when resolved - would see this article merit GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look! I should have time to address your comments in the next 24-48 hours. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, take your time. A bit of work, should be a good outcome for all. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all your actionable comments. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC) 
 * All the second opinion issues have been addressed satisfactorily and/or resolved.
 * I recommend you pass the review as per the instructions given here --Whiteguru (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. Sorry It took awhile to respond to second opinion. My computer broke. Caleb M1 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

✅