Talk:People's Bike Library of Portland/Archive 1

Source
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ RACC
 * http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-portland-riders-on-tiny-bikes-go-zoobombing-1405909803 --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to collaborate for a dual GA and DYK if possible. The Portland Mercury has some excellent material for hooks eg. "...that the group who created People's Bike Library were investigated on suspicion of being a terrorist cell?" ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, glad you're interested in collaborating on this article! I'm pretty sure the sources already used in the article have been extracted for details and used to their fullest potential, but since there are only six, do you want to have a thorough review of the Wikipedia article and sources to see if there are any changes to be made before we start incorporating additional sources? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I haven't spent much time at DYK in a while, but I think major article expansions are required for submitting DYK hooks. I'm not sure this article will be expanded enough to qualify, but we'll see. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Making a GA is a DYK threshold by itself: WP:DYKRULES. We would have seven days to propose the DYK after receiving GA. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Should any of the sources in the "External links" section be incorporated into the article's prose. They aren't exactly ideal, so I don't want to add them, only to have editors take issue with their inclusion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any issue with RACC or Public Art Archive, not so sure about the others ☆ Bri (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work so far. Let me know when you're done with your review, and what else we might need to do before moving forward to GA nom? Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think now's a good time to pause and clean up. The reviewer will hit us with the usual style and formatting issues ... first thing is to look for duplicated wikilinks. Would have done this myself but thought you may be able to use a formatting tool instead of hand-jamming it. Other stuff would be dash and apostrophe style, double check for complete citations, double check coordinate precision, and we probably can't have redlinks in a GA. Then as to substance there's probably some work to do to merge my changes to the background section with what was there before, it's a little rough now. I think after that's done, we can submit a request for GA and see what else is left. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. In the meantime, I've requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, which I always do when submitting an article for Good status. Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I've made some final improvements. I created separate sections for "Background" and "Description". I'm also wondering if the "History" section should be renamed "Commemoration" or "Dedication", since there's really no other information. However, "History" may actually be the most evergreen title, in case additional information (unrelated to the commemoration) is added to the article in the future. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Source formatting looks good, and I think duplicate linking has been addressed. Not sure if there's a URL to add for the A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English source? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Got the URL. I guess we are waiting for GOCE input now ☆ Bri (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't know book sources shouldn't include accessdates. I always add them if I include a URL, but not if I'm using a physical copy. Not a big deal either way, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just my preference; the accessdate seems to elevate the Google website above that of the printed book, which rubs my fur the wrong way. Kind of like how prefers OCLC over ISBN and any URL, if I understand him correctly, making the accessibility via library of chief importance. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

With the copy edit complete, I'm feeling pretty good about the state of this article. Do you have any objections to me initiating a co-nom? I don't mind waiting if you were planning on doing some additional research or anything. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please feel free, I see you handled this before e.g. Satan's Testicle, figuratively that is LOL ☆ Bri (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Bakfiets
Thanks for taking a look at this article. Are you sure "bakfiets" is singular? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've always seen it as singular. The linked source styles it that way. Here's a definitive explanation, and a great read. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Learn something new every day! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bakfiets is Dutch and it is singular. The plural is bakfietsen. By the way another good Dutch transportation-related word adopted into English is woonerf – I've been meaning to expand this with some examples in Cascadia region. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've requested a formal copy edit from GOCE, if you have any interest. Either way, thanks again for your help! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image
I've added a photograph of the sculpture. A bad image is better than no image, but if someone is able to replace the current image with a better one, but all means. The article can only have one photograph depicting the contemporary work of art, under fair use. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding the question here out of convenience: Are the piled bicycles a permanent part of the sculpture, or are they removed, ridden and replaced? This wasn't clear from the sources I have seen. It has to do with the descriptions of the loops too. Are they there to hold cables locking the bikes in? Also, if this is so, who controls the locks? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd assume the bicycles are used and replaced, but I'm not 100% sure. I've never seen them used, or watched a Zoobomb event. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on People's Bike Library of Portland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231352/http://www.odoka.org/the_work/zoobomb_pyle/ to http://www.odoka.org/the_work/zoobomb_pyle/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512220856/http://bikeportland.org/photos/album/72157619096960466/zoobomb-pyle-dedication.html to http://bikeportland.org/photos/album/72157619096960466/zoobomb-pyle-dedication.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"miniature"
I saw your note re: inclusion of the word "miniature". I figured "miniature bicycle" was more encyclopedic than "mini-bike", but I'm open to other options. What about replacing "miniature" with "small" thought the article? I do see your point re: "miniature" possibly implying scale model, which is incorrect. BTW, congrats and on the GA and thanks for your help completing and nominating this article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Small" sounds good to me. Congrats to you too, as the heavy lifter on this one ☆ Bri (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)