Talk:People's Bike Library of Portland/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Quick fail criteria assessment[edit]

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Main review[edit]

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

Lead

  • "with a bicycle on top" — I would be more descriptive, e.g., "with a gold-plated miniature bicycle on top".
  • "According to BikePortland.org" — I don't think you need this attribution for what is essentially a hard fact; a qualitative assessment of the sculpture's aesthetic merits, by contrast, could use such an attribution.
  • The two sentences in the second paragraph are quite repetitive. Something like "The collaboration between the two groups was occasioned by the "Art on the Streets" program set up by Mayor Sam Adams, which aims to..." would be more informative.

Background

  • ""Zoobomb pile" in 2007, prior to the erection of the 2009 sculpture" — Is this the "Holy Rack"? "Zoobomb pile" isn't mentioned in the article other than in this caption (although "Zoobomb pyle" is).
    • Added mention of ""Zoobomb pile". ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a reason that both "pile" and "pyle" are used?
        • I have to admit, I don't really get the "pile" vs "pyle" thing... I only used "pyle" in quotations when used by the source. I am not sure how "pyle" outside these specific sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I get what you mean. I would assume that "pyle" is just used sometimes to add some extra funkiness to the concept, but that it is essentially interchangeable. Not a big point though, and it would probably be hard to find a source for.
          • It might be a play on words sounding like "pylon". ☆ Bri (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fun-seeking mini-bike lovers" — Who described them thus? Also, this sentence needs an inline citation because of the quotation.
  • "The event acquired the name Zoobomb" — It's implied, but I would explicitly state that the "Zoo" in "Zoobomb" comes from the proximity to the zoo.
  • "Prior to ... Oak Street. The association ... domestic terrorists." — Suggest flipping these two sentences.
  • "People's Bike Library of Portland existed by 2006" — Was it actually called "People's Bike Library of Portland" back then?
    • I'd say yes, since the source (published in 2006) says, "The Zoobomb Pyle—which Zoobombers call the 'People’s Bike Library of Greater Portland'—is much more than a bunch of mini-bikes, it's an icon that symbolizes one of Portland’s proud traditions." I'm not sure we need to include "Greater", though. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BikePortland.org worked with the city to secure $10,000" — When? Also, it's a bit unclear who worked with the city to initiate the sculpture. It seems to have been done by some combination of BikePortland/Handsome Dave/Zoobomb, but it's unclear to what degree each was responsible, or to what degree they overlap.
    • Right, but unless sources say outright, I don't think we should make any assumptions, or force any connections between dots. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "the resulting artwork" — Feels a bit awkward without saying what it resulted from (which is in the last section). You could just delete this clause.
  • "Brian Borrello and Vanessa Renwick." Borrello is linked in the lead, so why not here?
  • "Erected in collaboration with Zoobomb" — Are Zoombomb members the only people who can use the bikes?
  • "7-by-7-foot (2.1 m × 2.1 m)" — Two inconsistencies: by vs. x, and hyphens vs. no hyphens.
    • This is generated automatically by the Wikipedia's "convert" template. I think we should use the template as designed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. The "convert" template is a bit confusing at first, but seems pretty versatile.
        • Thanks, I didn't realize the template could be changed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Metric (SI) units aren't really supposed to be hyphenated even in the adjective form. See NIST checklist rule 15. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a gold-plated miniature bicycle" — Was it a functional bicycle, or was it purpose built/sculpted for the sculpture?
The source says "mini-bike" which I think is a functional child's bicycle. Definitely not a motorized mini-bike. Another source would help here. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answering myself, Walking Portland says (p. 61) that the sculpture is made entirely of functional bicycles. Other sources confirmed Zoobombers prefer tiny bicycles. So I think the wording is better the way I corrected it. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the gold-plated bike is/was functional, but to be honest, it is kind of difficult to tell. As Bri mentioned, one source says the sculpture is made "entirely of functional bicycles", but I am not sure this is taking the bike on top into consideration. This link (not a reliable source) has an couple pictures, including an up-close photograph of the bike on top, but sourcing does not say specifically, as far as I can tell. I don't think we should worry too much. I changed "mini-bike" to "miniature bicycle" to keep the language encyclopedic, but I don't feel strongly either way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Miniature" still makes me a little uneasy as it sounds like some kind of scale model, not a (once) rideable machine. But it's merely a quibble. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A collection of bikes for children, intended for use by riders at weekly Zoobomb meetings," — The way the sentence starts off makes it sound as if they are put there for children to use. Suggest rephrasing to "A collection of children's bikes, intended..."

History

  • Suggest renaming "History" to "Unveiling", since "Background" and "History" sound redundant, and since this section only covers one event.
    •  Done Note: If any new content is added to this section in the future, unrelated to the unveiling, the section name may need to be changed back. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cyclist enthusiasts" — Suggest "cycling enthusiasts"?
  • "before parading to the sculpture." — How far away? Also, did they bicycle to it (which is what the next sentence seems to suggest)?
    • Not a far distance, and the article already says where the "Holy Rack" was located (Southwest 10th Avenue and Oak Street), as well as the location of the sculpture (West Burnside Street and Southwest 13th Avenue). I don't think we need to repeat either location. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding an "x blocks away" or "half a mile away" might be nice, for those of us who a) aren't from Portland, and b) can't be bothered to plot the distance on Google Maps. But it's a small issue.
  • "One of Zoobomb's 'most active and effective diplomats'" — Whose words?
    • I removed the quotation, and changed the sentence to "'Handsome Dave' thanked those who made both Zoobomb and the sculpture possible, then introduced Adams, who cut the ribbon after a countdown and spoke about the work's origins." ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Event attendees then posed for a group picture, then" — Suggest replacing the second "then" with "and".

Reception

  • Did the sculpture attract any criticism?
  • Are there any sources that assess the work as specifically as a piece of art, rather than as an affirmation of bicycling culture?
    • I've included as much sourcing as possible. There is not really sourcing assessing the work as art, but keep in mind, the artwork is really more of a bike rack than a contemporary sculpture, so art critics are less likely to pay attention. This subject is more notable as a symbol of bike culture than a contemporary work of art, and that's just fine! :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS):

— Appears compliant with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

  • Consider adding {{open access}} or {{closed access}} templates to the linked sources, but not a big deal.
    • Which sources are closed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • None. You're right, it's actually not worthwhile here.
  • Ref 3: "First name last name" inconsistent with "last name, first name" convention otherwise used. Also, hyphenated ISBN is: 0-415-37182-1.
  • Ref 13, 14: First name initial is inconsistent with other refs which use the full first name.
b (citations to reliable sources):

— Sources appear reliable, especially in context.

c (OR):

— No OR seen.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

— No apparent copyvios.

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):

— Article covers the major aspects.

b (focused):

— Article is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy — Article is neutral.

5. It is stable — Article is stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

— Images are appropriately licensed.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

— Images need alt text. Also, see point above about the "Zoobomb pile" caption.

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail: Looks pretty good, Another Believer & Bri. Most of the review is above; feel free to disregard stylistic points. I still need to take a look at the references, which I will do that soon. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time to review the article. I will be responding to your comments and concerns soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast responses, Another Believer & Bri. My responses are above. There's nothing major—other than the alt text, which should be added, just say if you disagree on something. I'll now take a look at the references. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refs look great. Very minor points about them (purely formatting) are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for attending to this so quickly. Everything looks great, so article is passed. Congrats! --Usernameunique (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Bike_Library_of_Portland/GA1&oldid=821514659"