Talk:LinkNYC/GA1

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

Reviewer: Esquivalience (talk · contribs) 22:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * The plan was announced by the mayor's office on November 17, 2014 ... - Use active voice. The mayor's office announced the plan on November 17, 2014 ...
 * The lead is a bit on the short side, and only summarizes the project itself and its history. There are many interesting points that can be brought up in the lead.

History

 * A total of thirteen companies were legally obligated to maintain New York City's payphones for fifteen years, as per a contract signed in 1999. - "A total of ..." is redundant.
 * The New York City government released a public request for information about the payphones' futures in July 2012.[2] In the RFI, the city asked for comments about the future uses for these payphones, presenting questions such as "What alternative communications amenities would fill a need?"; "If retained, should the current designs of sidewalk payphone enclosures be substantially revised?"; and "Should the current number of payphones on City sidewalks change, and if so, how?". - "payphones' futures" just seems peculiar, and some words can be removed. In July 2012, The New York City government released a public request for information, asking for comments about the future uses for these payphones. The RFI presented questions such as "What alternative communications amenities would fill a need?"; "If retained, should the current designs of sidewalk payphone enclosures be substantially revised?"; and "Should the current number of payphones on City sidewalks change, and if so, how?".
 * The RFI was looking for new uses for the payphones, including a combination of "public wireless hotspots, touch-screen wayfinding panels, information kiosks, charging stations for mobile communications devices, [and] electronic community bulletin boards," ... - the RFI cannot look for things; it is just the means that the NYC government seeks information through. Through the RFI, the New York City government sought new uses for the payphones, including a combination of "public wireless hotspots, touch-screen wayfinding panels, information kiosks, charging stations for mobile communications devices, [and] electronic community bulletin boards," ...
 * apiece for the routers, -> per router,
 * not well marked: can possibly be replaced to poorly marked
 * However, three or four banks of payphones along West End Avenue in the Upper West Side are expected to be preserved rather than being replaced with Links. These payphones, which are the only remaining fully enclosed payphones in Manhattan, are not expected to be replaced with Links: The second sentence is redundant.

Links

 * Each Link includes two free USB charging stations for smartphones as well as a phone that allows free calls to all 50 states. - Plus DC.
 * The Links' configuration allows people to make either phone calls (using the keypad and the headphone jack to the keypad's left), or video calls (using the tablet). - "configuration" is not really necessary.
 * The Links feature a red 9-1-1 call button below the tablet, directly above the headphone jack. -> The Links feature a red 9-1-1 call button between the tablet and the headphone jack.
 * The Links' operating system's processors are of the Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 model, and their graphics processing units are Adreno 320's. - Confusing, as operating systems are software. Perhaps it should be replaced as follows: The Links' operating system runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 processor and the Adreno 320 graphics processing unit..
 * The hardware and software are both designed to handle future upgrades. -> The Links' hardware and software can handle future upgrades. Redundant, and the last nouns were the Qualcomm 600 CPU and the Adreno 320, not the Links themselves.
 * The sensors also detect if the USB ports are tampered with. - What sensors? The vibration sensors would likely be useless in the event someone plays with the USB ports.

Continued

 * Controversially, the Links that do not have advertising ... - A better way to word it would be Controversially, the Links that lack advertising ...

Network

 * The announced specifications include Wi-Fi coverage with a radius of 150 feet (46 m), but with a signal that can be detected from up to 400 feet (120 m) away; encrypted public access; and speeds that enable the Wi-Fi routers to run at 1 gigabit per second or 1000 megabit per second, or more than 100 times faster than the 8.7 megabit per second speed of the average public Wi-Fi network in the United States. - This sentence is quite clumsy with an earthshaking two semicolons. "Megabit" should be plural. It can perhaps be separated and reworded as follows:
 * According to its specifications, the Links' Wi-Fi will cover a radius of 150 feet (46 m) to 400 feet (120 m). The Links' Wi-Fi is capable of running at 1 gigabit per second or 1000 megabits per second, more than 100 times faster than the 8.7 megabit per second speed of the average public Wi-Fi network in the United States. The encryption sentence should be moved after the sentences on Wi-Fi speed: Aside from the unsecured network that devices can directly connect to, the Links provide an encrypted network that shields communications from eavesdropping within the network.
 * About that - the semicolons are supposed to be like a complicated list format, but good point. I'll fix it. epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Anne Roest, the commissioner of the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, also cautioned against this logic: “If you think about it, 150 feet, some of these streets have really tall buildings, you’re not going to be driving Time Warner out of business.” - http://gothamist.com/2016/01/05/linknyc_wifi_2_fast_2_furious.php
 * The network is only intended for use in public spaces, however; people in private buildings would most likely still need to have an ISP other than LinkNYC, though this may be subject to change in the future. - Somewhat clumsy conjoining of clauses. For a start, use "so" so it flows better: The network is only intended for use in public spaces, so people in private buildings would most likely still need to have an ISP other than LinkNYC, though this may be subject to change in the future. The second part is original research: the article cited says only the following:
 * CityBridge emphasized that it takes security and privacy seriously, and stated that it had worked with the New York City government "to create the most robust and forward thinking privacy policy that is currently available for any municipal Wi-Fi project," but declined to publish either the policy or the encryption specifications or technology. - Original research, as the CityBridge document cited, while bragging about how they're not Big Brother and how they don't use telescreens to spy on Link users, did not explicitly deny to release such details.
 * to iOS devices with iOS 7 and above (i.e. any iOS devices made since 2013) - The iPhone 4s still supports iOS 7 despite being released in 2010.
 * one communications writer surmised that the deal had either not been implemented yet or had fallen through. - A simpler synonym for "surmised" would be "speculated" or "presumed", whichever fits the context.
 * The network is very popular; with 450,000 unique users and over 1 million devices connecting to the Links in an average week, the Links had been used a total of more than 21 million times as of September 2016 - Break the sentence up, and a semicolon isn't needed especially for separating the independent and dependent clause: The network is very popular, with 450,000 unique users and over 1 million devices connecting to the Links in an average week. The Links had been used a total of more than 21 million times as of September 2016.
 * the LinkNYC network also served the purpose - "also" isn't really needed, as there is no other specific purpose mentioned earlier in the text.
 * The LinkNYC network is seen as mitigating this internet equality somewhat, because many poor neighborhoods, like some in the Bronx, will get relatively few Links. - This statement seems to be mentioning a caveat of the Links on mitigating poor access to the Internet, but the wording doesn't emphasize this. Also, it should say "mitigating this internet inequality": The LinkNYC network is seen as only somewhat mitigating this internet inequality, as many poor neighborhoods, like some in the Bronx, will get relatively few Links.

Concerns

 * The deployment of the Links and the method, process, eventual selection, and ownership of entities involved in the project has come under scrutiny by privacy advocates - one source to a conference does not necessarily represent the consensus of privacy advocates on this topic, so a secondary source is needed for this.
 * the concept of when things are free then the product is the end user, and in this case, the end user's data. - confusing, and seems like a convoluted way to say "data collection activities" and the Links potentially selling out data?
 * The LinkNYC Wi-Fi is not being monitored by LinkNYC, nor will information be sold to third parties except in extreme circumstances such as situations requiring the intervention of law enforcement. - It is best to elaborate: LinkNYC ought to monitor the network if they can give information in extreme circumstances, and it somewhat contradicts the privacy concerns raised, so perhaps it should be reworded for neutrality. Also, law enforcement doesn't "buy" information: LinkNYC claims that it neither monitors the Links' Wi-Fi nor sells information to third parties..The second sentence with a third party with whom we must legally share information about you covers the law enforcement point well-enough.
 * when users put in PII - MOS:ABBR states that new acronyms should not be devised, so PII should be expanded. If this is to be kept, add (PII) after "personally identifiable information" in the first paragraph of the other privacy issues section.
 * The USB ports are also susceptible to physical tampering with skimmers, which may lead to a user's device getting a malware infection while charging; this is prevented by the more than 30 anti-vandalism sensors on each Link (see above), as well as the fact that the USB ports have been configured so that they can only be used to charge devices. The fact that the USB ports cannot be used to send data is mostly irrelevant to the concern of skimming, so they should be separated: The USB ports have been configured so that they can only be used to charge devices. However, the USB ports are still susceptible to physical tampering with skimmers, which may lead to a user's device getting a malware infection while charging; this is prevented by the more than 30 anti-vandalism sensors on each Link (see above). Also, you may wish to wikilink "30 anti-vandalism sensors) to rather than telling the reader to scroll above, but the statement is self-explanatory enough.
 * "remember" networks with a given name - By "remember", do they mean "automatically connect to"? If so, it should be reworded as such.
 * porn -> pornography
 * doing things like watching movies and listening to music, among other things. - the examples are not really necessary.

Source review
Special:Permalink/751932203


 * 1: Questionable source. It looks like some marketing or press release website more than a credible source.
 * ✅ 2–5 are fine, 6 appears to be a blog but reliable enough with a small editorial board. 7-18 are fine, but for 17, spell out "New York Observer" as the work. There are many sources that can be shortened to "Observer".
 * 19 is dead. Wayback Machine link
 * ✅ 20-61 are reliable.

Comments
Thank you very much for the in-depth review. I really appreciate having specific feedback on what to fix; it has been helpful. I've resolved the issues from above. epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. I'll fix the other issues soon. I have fixed them. Please ping me if other issues come up. Thank you, epicgenius (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that I have finished reviewing the whole article, with the comments above. Currently, per WP:GA?, this article meets 1b, heeding the basic MOS guidelines, and should meet 1a after all my prose concerns are addressed. It contains a reference list, citing sources via a consistent style (2a). Some sources are less-than-stellar (such as the tabloids), but overall the sources are worth the statements they support (2b). I found some instances of original research during my review, and some instances still need to be addressed ( 2c). The article is comprehensive and provides interesting facts about LinkNYC and its perils (exceeds 3a). It is verbose at points, but overall, the article is focused on LinkNYC and doesn't venture into other topics (3b). Some minor neutrality issues, but it is related to original research rather than POV content (4). No edit wars or significant conflict (5). Images are appropriately tagged; no fair use images (6a). Images are relevant and well-captioned (6b). The installation image in LinkNYC should be moved to the installation section in history. Overall, the article is close to meeting GA standards. And yes, there is no rush in promoting this article to GA, so take your time. Esquivalience (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate how much detail you gave to this review. Thank you for that, because it made the article better. I removed much of the original research that I found, and solved most of the POV issues. I also moved that image from "Network" section to "Installation" section. In the meantime, I'll look for sources to replace or supplement some of these tabloids. Again, thanks for the comprehensive review. epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, but I just added a new section, "Wider deployment." This section describes deployment of Link kiosks to other cities. Could you quickly look this section over before concluding this GA review? I would really appreciate it, and happy holidays. epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To expedite my review, I made the necessary edits. Other than that, this article now satisfies the GA criteria, so I will pass it. And happy perihelion! Esquivalience (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! And happy perihelion to you too (though I really don't know anyone IRL who says that), but still. epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)