User:Spintendo/GA Nominations

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Google bus protests/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I will review this article. I'll make some more comments later, but this is from a cursory examination of the article. epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you on this nomination! Spintendo      02:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I will make comments as I go.

Main comments

Images

• All appropriately licensed, though adding alt text would be preferable.

Infobox

• The "commuter shuttle program" links to another page, even though it is mentioned later in the article. Maybe this link can be changed to an intra-article link to Google bus protests#Commuter shuttle program?
  •  A:Link changed to subsection lower in the article
• The list of parties to this conflict is not particularly accessible to those with screen readers, plus the formatting is off (e.g. Yahoo! is spaced much further down from the rest of the tech companies). This could be solved using a plainlist.
  •  A: I'm not sure if I got the formatting correct. Check again and let me know if its still not viewable
    • OK, I formatted it a bit more. I replaced the line breaks with a plainlist. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• community based should contain a hyphen since this is a single phrase used as an adjective.
  •  A:hypen added
• Some of these references are used only in the lead. I think you can move these references down to the body, as well as some of the details that these sources support. For instance, the commuters driving by themselves would be a good detail to add to the body.
  •  A: Im not sure which references should be moved and which statements could remain, so I moved what was in the lead to a lower paragraph and rewrote the lead without references, using information already cited elsewhere.
• The lead should contain some details of actions taken during the protests.
  •  A:Rewrote a brief synopsis of the protests
    • OK, but now the lead is missing the dates on which the protests ended. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Could the commuter shuttle program be briefly described? One sentence about the program, and how it helped stop the protests, would be essential to the lead.
  •  A:Briefly described

Background

• pars pro toto means "parts of the whole". I interpreted that to mean that these buses aren't strictly operated by Google, so there are also Facebook buses. However, this article doesn't make that clear, so I was confused at the mention of Apple, Facebook, etc. at first.
  •  A: Latin term returned to the lead section as the second sentence.

Transportation needs

• What is the purpose of including the names of these authors? Are they notable? Generally, if these writers are not notable, or authorities on their respective topics, or mentioned multiple times in the article, the names of authors wouldn't be included in the prose.
  •  A: Author's names removed
• These inadequate links between San Francisco and Silicon Valley workplaces became a leading factor in the initial acceptance in 2008 by Silicon Valley employers of Google buses as viable alternatives for transportation - this is awkwardly worded. How about this: "These inadequate links between San Francisco and Silicon Valley workplaces became a leading factor in Silicon Valley employers' 2008 acceptance of Google buses as viable alternatives for transportation".
  •  A: Rephrase implemented
• So, did these services actually start in 2008? Or was the concept just thought up by then, and the implementation rolled-out later? If it was the former, you can state that.
  •  A: Started in 2005 with perhaps one company, then slowly, additional companies starting using them. By 2008 they were well established and visible every day on streets in SF. From 2008 till 2013 they operated without mass opprobrium (which, just like the shuttles themselves, first started with one or two groups, then slowly grew to become a large concerted group of many many activist groups working singularly or together in opposition.) Media focus came in 2013-2014. Changed sentence to say leading factor in Silicon Valley employers' 2008 acceptance implementation of Google buses
    • It seems like the services became widely used by 2008. I couldn't find any mention of this in the reference, though. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Are there any figures on the ridership of existing systems (e.g. BART, Muni bus/tram) before the buses were implemented?
  •  A: Approx 80,000 people commute in and out of SF each morning on the transports shown below, for 2010 and 2015. (AM only)

Transportation Usage Per Person
AM Travel Only - Not PM
SF Bay Area

System	2010	2015
BART	9,828	13,738
Caltrain	1,892	2,936
Muni Metro	6,408	8,550
Muni Streetcar	499	780
Muni Bus	11,397	11,745
CSP (Google buses)	N/A Unknown	9,800
SamTrans	350	382
Personal car	24,898	23,159
Bicycle/Walk	9,065	10,543

Notes

References

• Thanks. I was thinking maybe the Google Buses' ridership can be compared to the mass transit figures. It looks like BART usage went up a lot, and Muni Metro went up less. If there are any pre-2008 figures, this would show even more of a contrast. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ridership on the Google buses wasn't tracked before 2014, so that figure cannot be known. The other ridership profiles from pre-2010 I'm sure I can find.

OK, just let me know if you can find that info. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 A: I was able to find figures for the year 2000, but the numbers represented totals used per year, and these figures used above were totals for an average weekday during the AM commute. Unfortunately, the company that put together this last report with all the nice data weren't the ones doing reports 20 years ago. I've noticed that as far as reportmaking goes, traffic wardens such as SFMTA are really big on future projections. Past data, and finding it easily, is a task which apparently does not concern them too much, as it is not as easily found. Spintendo      03:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Gentrification

• namely, gentrification - The comma isn't needed here.
  •  A:Removed
• coupled with the suburban locations of tech companies - There should be two commas around this phrase. otherwise, it's a run-on.
  •  A:Added
• served to isolate tech workers from other San Francisco residents, in a manner similar to gated communities - On the other hand, the comma wouldn't be needed if you added commas around the above phrase.
  •  A:Check the commas here, I reworded a bit and added some.
    • I meant something like this, which reads more smoothly.
• On another note, are there any figures on fares? This would be really good for explaining the gentrification aspect. A bus that charges $6.50 per fare (like the express bus fare in NYC) would be very controversial indeed.
  •  A:Regarding Google buses, riders of the Google buses do not pay for their use of the shuttles. This is considered to be provided by their employers for them without cost. The company pays the city of San Francisco a fee, $7.31 per stop, regardless of who gets off or gets on. The city considers this to be payment for use of the stop. Regarding city buses, the average citizen who rides the city bus must pay to use the city bus. Their fee is $2.75 for a regular fare one way. Regular citizens are not allowed to ride on the Google buses, if they attempt to board, which they did during the protests, they are barred from entry. Only employees of the tech companies providing the shuttles are allowed to travel using the Google buses. During one of the protests, an activist group tried passing out what they called "Gmuni" passes. They said that these passes would allow regular people to ride the Google buses for free. But of course the passes didnt work, and they werent allowed on board. The Gmuni program was an April Fools Day themed protest. Video footage of it is in the External links section.
    • That's interesting. I've never heard of a pay-per-stop funding format. Were there any figures for per-stop payments before this? If not, then thay's fine. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The city did not collect fees from the shuttles before 2014. According to the city's information:

Under California state law, permit programs are cost-recovery, so fee revenues must be used only for administration of the permit program. The permit fee for participation in the Commuter Shuttle Program is $7.31 per stop event and will continue at this rate under the proposed legislation. The fee will be reviewed and adjusted if necessary as part of the two-year SFMTA budget process. Prior to August 2014, San Francisco did not regulate or collect fees from commuter shuttles. Shuttles operated throughout the City on both large arterial and small non-arterial streets. Shuttles loaded and unloaded passengers in a variety of places whether it was legal or not, including white loading zones, red Muni zones, and other vacant curb spaces. When curb space was unavailable, shuttles often would load or unload passengers in the travel lane. The lack of rules for where and when loading and unloading were permitted resulted in confusion for shuttle operators and neighbors, inconsistent enforcement, and real and perceived conflicts with other transportation modes. Thus, when Google buses finally gave way to commuter shuttles, the era of uncoordinated confusion was ultimately vanquished by a calm collection of fees.

Spintendo      08:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What you just wrote would actually be pretty helpful to add to the article. Before, I was a little confused as to why people would be protesting over privately used buses, since they are common in NYC where I live. The explanation - the Google buses operating without having to pay a fee to the city - makes much more sense for the reader. Another interesting note is how the Google buses would have loaded/unloaded anywhere, even in the middle of traffic, and how the commuter shuttles paying a per-stop fee to the city reduced this. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

• I like that Rebecca Solnit explains that these are unmarked buses. Are there any other sources for this, especially objective sources? This ref is fine, but by itself it's a criticism piece that's being used to source a factual statement.
  •  A: 2nd reference describing the buses as "unmarked" appended to the text under Solnit's blockquote

Dueling transportation systems

• most notably, the shuttles' usage of existing, public bus stops - Neither comma is needed. Also, I think you can drop "existing" unless the public buses also used new bus stops, since it's implied these public stops already exist.
  •  A:Removed extra commas and existing
• usage that the City of San Francisco was not compensated for - does this refer to private buses using public bus stops, or the congestion?
  •  A:Both, in that the delays and congestion which resulted from the uncoordinated ballet of buses which affected the city buses' timeliness were not alleviated by monetary compensation when the protests first began. The city had to rely only on the monies it collected from people riding their buses, which was 2.00 per person per stop. The Commuter Shuttle Program now allows the city to collect upwards of almost $8.00 per stop from the Google buses, and the buses are coordinated and the streets they use are well defined, so there are never incidents where Google buses are somewhere on a certain street at a certain time when they shouldn't be. And the drivers are bonded and trained similar to city bus drivers. Spintendo      12:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • OK, so I guess you can clarify this in a new sentence, similar to this: "The City of San Francisco was not compensated for the Google buses' usage of public bus stops, nor for the congestion that resulted when city buses tried to use these stops at the same time." This isn't the best wording, but that's what I can discern from the article and what you told me. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The city was not compensated for usage of their bus stops. Everything that results from that is, I suppose, lesser avenues of non-compensation. Like at a restaurant, the menu will list the prices of certain dishes. But that isn't the actual price of the food described in the menu. The price factors in incidentals such as labor, property taxes paid by the restaurant, health insurance, electricity, etc. That fee pays for all of those things, but to ensure an economy of terms, its labeled simply as the cost of dinner.

I see. I guess it is an indirect loss of money, such as when the congestion has a negative economic impact on the city. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

More later. epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

New additions:

Lead

• groups goals - "group's" should have an apostrophe.
  •  A: Apostrophe's added.
• bestowed legitimacy upon - this seems subjectively worded, I'd just say "gave legitimacy to".
  •  A: Reworded as suggested.

Background

• I think you can clarify that the general public couldn't get onto the Google/Facebook/etc buses.
  •  A: I reworded the sentence as The buses are used to ferry only specific employees from designated companies from their homes...

Protests - Direct action

• December 9, 2013 - Just to be grammatically correct, in American English, if a "Month Day, Year" date appears in the middle of the sentence, there are commas after the year. For example, The protests started on December 9, 2013, when activists from a group called Heart of the City blocked and entered a double-decker bus used by Google.
  •  A: Changed to 9 December 2013, (with a comma after the year)
    • @Spintendo: OK, but now you have inconsistent date formats, like "9 December 2013" and "April 1, 2014". epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• in San Francisco's Mission District, at 24th Street and Valencia Street - I'd switch around "at 24th Street and Valencia Street" and "in San Francisco's Mission District". The intersection is mentioned later in the article, so it should be mentioned first just so readers don't get the impression that it was a generic intersection in the Mission District.
  •  A: Switched as suggested.
• Ref 20, "Seattle Gets Its Own Tech Bus Protest", refers to Seattle protests. So the protests extended not only to Oakland but also to other cities as far away as Seattle. This should be mentioned in the text.
  •  A: Seattle mentioned. That reference was here before I even started on the article, and I've never cared much for it. I'm not really certain how much of a Seattle protest scene there actually was or whether that was jumping on the bandwagon.
• In isolated incidents across the bay in Oakland - you can remove "across the bay" since this exact phrase appeared within the same paragraph, making this redundant.
  •  A: accross the bay removed
• a protester broke a window of one bus and slashed the tire of another. - This sounds like it's the same protester, but these are clearly different protesters. I'd suggest replacing "a protester" with "protesters", even if only one protester did each action, since there were two protesters here.
  •  A: Two unrelated protestors delineated
• loaudspeaker - is a typo.
  •  A: Loudspeaker corrected
• The April Fool's blockage seemed to have occurred before a key vote on a plan to charge these tech companies to use the bus stops. I think this can be mentioned, either here or in the "Resolution" section.
  •  A: The $1.00 fee discussed in the reference during the January 2014 meeting was part of the 18-month test program which began in July 2014, six months after the January meeting which saw its initial approval and creation. I've clarified this timing better in the relevant statement.

Police response

• de–escalate - This seems more like a place where a hyphen, rather than an endash, is used - simply because the hyphen is used in the middle of single words, as is the case here.
  •  A: It was using whichever punctuation is used in the wiktionary article, but I've changed it here to a simple hyphen.
• other, more appropriate means - What are examples of these "more appropriate means"?
  •  A: Anything short of taking them into custody, such as mediated discussion, suggestions, or in the case of the April Fools Day protest, the police simply allowed the organizer to have her say, ensuring opportunities for both press photos to be taken and the collective group "chant and/or rallying cry" to be made towards the end. After that, the two groups (the Google bus riders and the Google bus protestors) went their separate ways. The protestors got the publicity they wanted and their message heard, while the bus riders were delayed for 30 minutes in what was essentially a minor inconvenience. From what I've read, the police culture 30 years ago might not have enabled such a peaceful end to that kind of a disruption to street traffic in SF. They could have pulled batons on people and made things really messy and mean. So when you look at the face of the officer in the video I mentioned, you can't help but laugh at the puzzled yet bemused look on his face as he listens first to the organizer on her loudspeaker while observing dance performers in red and blue costumes doing yoga and upside down leg splits and headstands all right there on Valencia in 8am traffic. All of that and it ended with no one hurt and no one in jail. I believe that this is owed a great deal to the change in police culture over the years along with the police policy changes, which I referenced. I understand that what's needed is to elaborate in the article what "appropriate means" means... perhaps if I changed it to "more non-confrontational means" or perhaps "more proactive means" I dunno. What do you suggest? Spintendo      08:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I think "non-confrontational means" would work just fine - it's all encompassing while not vague. But now that you mention it, an example would work even better. It can be just a phrase, like this: "non-confrontational means, such as communicating with non-compliant subjects". (In this particular example, I used Ref 25 "Use of Force Proposed General Order / Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)", p. 4.) epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

More later. epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 A: Suggested changes to this sentence were made.

OK, finishing prose portion:

Resolution - SF Board of Supervisors

• stepped in - this is problematic when combined with "early on", though the phrase is fine by itself. How about "intervened"?
  •  A: I've changed this sentence to just bypass the problematic phrasing.
• Tech shuttles - I think you should clarify to "Tech shuttle operators" because the operators were the entities who would've been subject to the $1-per-stop-per-day fee.
  •  A: The fees charged to the shuttle operators were immediately passed on to the tech companies. As they are the ones who hired the shuttles, they are the ones responsible for the payments, if not directly to the city, then to the shuttle companies which fronted the fees for them.
• Angry residents, citing the $2 fee[a] San Franciscans had to pay to board city buses - The note interrupts the flow of the phrase. You can clarify the $2 fee in the prose itself, rather than in the footnote, because I'm not sure the current fare is relevant at this point in the article (which is explaining the residents' anger at the 2014 fares). So like this, "Angry residents, citing the $2 fee San Franciscans had to pay at the time to board city buses,". But if you're sure you want to keep the current fee, I guess you can move the note to after the comma.
  •  A: I've moved the note to after the period.
• The SFMTA's full name should be spelled out on the first mention.
  •  A: This is not the first time it is being mentioned. Since that earlier mention takes place in the paragraph marked Transportation needs way at the beginning of the article, and since other editors may overlook the earlier mention or may read the article out of sequence, I've changed this second mention to use the full title as well.
• Six months later in July 2014, - This is missing a comma. I see three alternatives for this phrase. You can write "Six months later" or "in July 2014" or "Six months later, in July 2014,".
  •  A: Comma added.
• during its 18 months in effect - This is clunky because the 18 months don't belong to the fee, so to speak. How about: "during the 18 months that it was to be in effect".
  •  A: Changed to the suggested version.

Tech companies response

• In the header, Companies' should have an apostrophe at the end.
  •  A: Apostrophe added.
• Alexandra Goldman with UC Berkeley City Planning released details of her research on the "shuttle effect" - At first read, it's confusing as to whether Goldman worked with UC Berkeley, or whether Goldman is from UC Berkeley. From reading the reference, I think it's the latter. You should write "Alexandra Goldman, a UC Berkeley City Planning student, released details of her research on the "shuttle effect"." or something similar.
  •  A: I've removed the Goldman information.
• stating that rents rise up to 20% around Google bus stops. The average change was 5% - This should be combined into a single sentence and split off from the previous sentence about Goldman. So the new sentences could read like this, "Alexandra Goldman, a UC Berkeley City Planning student, released details of her research on the "shuttle effect". She stated that rents rise up to 20% around Google bus stops, compared to the average citywide change of 5%."
  •  A: This claim was removed.
• To that effect, the ref in the article, Ref 30 "Curbing the Google bus", doesn't mention the 5% figure. In fact, that reference says that rents near Google bus stops rose up to 20 percent more rapidly (direct quote) than the city's average. By the way, Goldman's research can be linked directly here, and it even has an interesting map on page 17 (but that's just a side note). This same source, on page 15, also says the median rent rose 10.6 percent from February 2012 to February 2013.
  •  A: This claim was removed. Ms. Goldman is a person and not a tech company herself, so whatever input she had to offer would not be relevant here.

Commuter shuttle program

• You can unlink SFMTA (which is linked three times in this section alone), since you already linked it above. But if you spell it out at the first instance, like I mentioned above, the link would not be needed.
  •  A: Unlinked.
• from then on - a synonym is "thereafter".
  •  A: Thereafter used.
• initial end date of March 31, 2017 - the mention of March 31, 2017, is redundant since you already mentioned it.
  •  A:This usage here was not redundant, as the first mention uses the date because the term "extension" implies that there is no expiration, as extensions are used to extend expirations. The next sentence then mentions another extension which leads to confusion: is this the first extension, or another extension? By setting out at the first mention of an extension that it was to expire at a certain point (the March date) the second extension is not as confusing. The date of the second extension's creation simultaneously marks the end of the first extension.

Isolated incidents

• What's the relevance of this section to the original protests? Was a connection explicitly denied?
  •  A: I don't believe this statement has any relevance to anything in the article — but then again, I am not the editor who added it. I simply moved it from its original placement under the Direct action subheading, to the more-chronologically correct place at the end of the article.
• several of them had their windows broken while occupied and moving - I think this should occur earlier in the sentence. But since this borders into a run-on, it should be split into two sentences anyway. Like this. "In early 2018, media reported that isolated attacks against the buses had occurred. Several buses had their windows broken while occupied and moving, prompting Apple and Google to reroute their shuttles."
• "A normal Greyhound bus", which I presume is this, doesn't clarify things for readers, especially those unfamiliar with Greyhound. Greyhound seems to be irrelevant anyway. A better term is "coach buses" since this doesn't bring Greyhound into the article at all.
  •  A: I'm deleting this part as more trouble than it is worth. If the editor who added it would like it to remain, then they can come here and make these changes themself to that part of the article.

I will check the references later. This seems to be an okay article, but is missing a few key details on the motivations for the protests (specifically how the tech companies could use bus stops without paying for them). A few more examples of protests would be nice, but not to the point where there's a day-by-day timeline, which would be excessive. Instead, I think there should be details on the examples of banners that the protesters had, and the protesters' proposed remedies. This is a very interesting topic, and with a few more detail additions, could be really useful for readers. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Spintendo: Thank you for your response. In "Tech companies' response", I also have another issue:
  • On 31 March 2014, tech-advocacy group sf.citi, led by Ron Conway, angel investor in Google and other tech companies, released a statement of support for SFMTA's pilot program. has too many commas. Obviously, the phrase led by Ron Conway, angel investor in Google and other tech companies is a descriptor for the phrase tech-advocacy group sf.citi. But that is still a lot of commas. How about this: "On 31 March 2014, tech-advocacy group sf.citi—led by Ron Conway, angel investor in Google and other tech companies—released a statement of support for SFMTA's pilot program." Or you can replace the dashes with parentheses, or just put the "angel investor in Google and other tech companies" phrase in parentheses. epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 A: The sentence on Mr. Conway has been decommafied.

References

Because the main review was so big, I have to review the references in another section. I will do a quick review of the references themselves, and also spot check to see if they verify the content.

References

• Ref 4 "San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt" is from the Guardian. For consistency, there should be an ISSN as well, since ISSN is included in other sources like #3 and #13. ISSN: 0261-3077.
  •  A:This already states the Guardian. The only sources which use an ISSN is one journal article where the software, if you add the reference using the DOI's URL, automatically adds an ISSN. The other publication I specifically placed the ISSN in it because there was no other linked way of identifying it (it was a "dark reference" so to speak, which is a references which contains no links whatsoever, thus as nothing is highlighted with the blue linked font, the reference is "dark". It's a personal preference of mine not to use dark references if at all possible.)
• Ref 8 "District 5 Diary: Google buses: pro and con" is a Blogspot article. How is it reliable?
  • ✗ Deleted reference
• Ref 9 "Public Transportation Reduces Greenhouse Gases and Conserves Energy" needs page numbers, as it's a PDF. It also needs a publisher, and a date if applicable. If you can't find the date, it's fine, although this source has statistics that are dated.
  • ✗ Deleted reference
• Ref 14, 18, 20, and 22 are from the NY Times. It also should have ISSN for consistency. ISSN: 0362-4331.
  •  Desired action is unknown When you say that they are from the New York Times, are you asking if they are? Or are you repeating it for good measure. I would agree that they are all from the New York Times.
    • I'm repeating it for good measure. But let me put it this way: if you have an ISSN in some references but not in others, it is going to look pretty inconsistent. epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• ✗ Deleted The two instances where international standard serial numbers were used have been removed.

• Refs 22 and 24 are not dead links, so you should set them to |dead-url=no.
  •  Desired action is unknown
    • Set them to |dead-url=no from |dead-url=yes. epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• ? Reference section numbering is handled by the MediaWiki software and is not static, meaning that calling something "References No. 22 and 24" may not mean the same thing as it did one or two edits ago. Accordingly, this direction does not help in making these changes. Is there an author listed with these references?

• My mistake. These seem to be Ref 19 "Tech Rides Are Focus of Hostility in Bay Area", and Ref 21 "April Fool's Protesters Block Google Bus In San Francisco Ahead Of Key Vote". epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

•  A: I placed the dead url parameters to "no" on both of those references. Was it just those two or were there others?

• Just these two.

• Refs 32 and 34 are exact duplicates of each other. Maybe you'd like to add an archive link as well, because fees change.
  •  There is a slight difference They are identical links, but they direct the reader to separate areas of the page based on their titles. The first link's title directs the reader to the section heading marked Project updates while the second link's title directs readers to the section heading marked Fees. Normally, this degree of attention to where the reader ought to look would not be necessary. However, the linked page in question contains no-less than 14 headings and subheadings all within a single page. Placing the two links helps to further delineate where the reader out to be looking.
    • OK, I see. epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

• Any chance you can integrate these into the text? This may seem like a lot, but could be used to support new details.

That's it for now. I will verify the refs' content soon, though I have already pointed out a few issues above. epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Spot check

• Ref 16 "In A Divided San Francisco, Private Tech Buses Drive Tension" doesn't really verify the sentence This sparked other groups across the bay in Oakland and out of state in Seattle to protest private tech commuter buses in their areas.. In fact, this reference talks more about the inequality.
  •  A: This reference has been relocated.
• Ref 25 "Google, Yahoo Worker Buses Prompt Backlash; San Francisco Will Start Regulating Shuttles That Take Employees to Silicon Valley" is paywalled.
  •  A: Replaced.
• Ref 27 "Opposing sides rally troops for tech bus throw-down" doesn't seem to be working.
  •  A: This reference has been fixed.
• Ref 29 "Protest Blocks Tech Buses as SF Supes Mull Program Extension" should also be used to cite the phrase Sporadic protesting continued until February 2016.
  •  A: Reference extended.

Looks like all the issues have been responded to or resolved. I will make a decision about this article later today. epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Before you do that, I have some more protests Id like to add to beef up that section. Spintendo      00:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, I was going to suggest exactly that. epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a few small comments:

• I've read the lead several times now and I'm still none the wiser as to why the community was protesting. At a basic level, the lead is saying Protests happened. Protests were not just for Google. Strategy used by protests. Government fixed the issue.. It needs to include Community angry because XXX. Reading further down it seems that the issue of having a "two-level" transportation framework was the key issue behind the community's unrest, but that's not communicated very clearly even in the body.
• messaging by the protesting group's disseminated does not need a apostrophe, and that sentence is just generally clunky.

TheDragonFire (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire:Thank you for your feedback! I agree that the lead was not doing as best as it could to descibe things here. I've altered the text in the lead to try to communicate better what the main issues were. If you could take a look at this new lead and let us know if it works, it would be much appreciated! Spintendo      05:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added a few more incidents, and reshuffled them so they describe SF protests in one paragraph and Oakland protests in a second paragraph (although I hope I'm not artificially creating some kind of distinction between the "erudite" SFranciscans and the "heathen" Oaklanders, because that wasn't my intent, although I can see how it might look that way). I also redid the lead. Let me know if those work. Thnx Spintendo      17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo and TheDragonFire: I think almost everything is OK with this article now. There's one thing in the lead I still have a problem with: the quote "as both a literal expression of privatized infrastructure, and a symbolic expression of economic inequality" isn't directly attributed in the prose. It seems to be written by graduate students on their Blogspot, though, and I'm not sure whether this would be the most reliable source for this observation. There's probably some other source that makes this same observation, and I'd like to see if that source could be found first. epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 A: I replaced the quote with one from Abigail De Kosnik.Spintendo      19:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, could you explain who De Kosnik is? The ref is fine, but I'm not familiar with her, and the average reader probably wouldn't, either. epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 A: Abigail De Kosnik is an Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley and the Berkeley Center for New Media. I've also added that description of her to the article. Spintendo      03:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm passing this article now. I commend you for your nice work on this page, and I appreciate that the issues were resolved so quickly. epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The EndUp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Opening statement

I am not a member of the LGBT community or familiar with the San Francisco area. I am reviewing this article because it's been in the GAR backlog for the better part of a year (nominated last November, as of time of writing).

For replying to Reviewer comment, 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 after this section and my first comment (Referencing). –Vami_IV† 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

Any outstanding problems I've had with the referencing of this article, I have already taken care of (redundant instances of citation [3].) The two uses of full-form syntax for a single book bothers me, but it happens literally only twice, so I will make no further mention of it.

History

This section feels incomplete, to put it bluntly. I feel I've been given a TL;DR version rather than a full, comprehensive history (examples: "Helmut Hanken era" and "Carl Hanken era" don't really explain what troubles they were facing). I am to understand that this is because of a dirth of reliable references, which I completely understand. The section feels mostly complete, and does have specificity in some places, such as Mr. Whitmore's attempted murder of Carl Franken. There is also no transitional prose between sections, except the end of "Helmut Hanken era."

I see what you mean. I think that in this case, not every ownership era encountered troubles, so I didn't want to make the headings too much about particular issues, since the most noteworthy items from each era differed from each other somewhat. In the frenetic world of nightclubs, the only relationship of substance between the clientele, the music and the atmosphere is that of the owner, in particular, the owner's style of management, which sets the tone for everything else. This tone changes from owner to owner, but the impact that each owner has is a consistent impact which largely determines the success or decline of a club. And the change in ownership through death or through sale helps to provide for a natural transition between the era's. As far as a comprehensive history, that has yet to be written, although Marke B's account comes close, I've already used a lot from it and wanted to stop short of using too much.  spintendo  21:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Carl Hanken era

• With a new executor in control, Helmut Hanken's estate immediately sold the club to Carl Hanken. Uncited.

 Fixed  spintendo  21:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Progress

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

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 Sierra Leone mudslides/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 01:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Review

Hi, first of all thanks for all the work you put into this article. I enjoyed reading it.

• I feel like the article could really use some more copyediting. Here are a few instances:

• "causing what is considered one of the worst disasters in decades" By whom? Aren't there objective measurements for this such as number of deaths, property destroyed, etc?
• "In the Western Area of Sierra Leone itself" Why "itself"?
• "including city's situation at or below sea level" What city? Freetown? Should be "the city's". "Location" would be better than "situation".
• "As many as 1,141 people have been confirmed dead or missing" That doesn't make sense to me? Is it possible that fewer people have been confirmed dead or missing?
• "to curve the threat of disease" curve?
• "Cause: Landslides due to heavy rain" Well, the rain was the cause, landslides were the effect

• I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask when it comes to copyediting. Have you considered asking around to see if someone would be willing to go through the article? WP:GOCE or relevant WikiProjects might good places to ask.

• It doesn't seem right to me that ReliefWeb is listed as the place sources such as UN or World Bank reports were published. As far as I understand it, ReliefWeb merely hosts these things on its website. Also, several of those sources have authors that should be identified.

• I'm not sure I understand the final paragraph of the "Impact" section. The numbers don't really make any sense to me.

• "As many as 5,900 people were affected by the disaster" What does "affected" mean in this context?
• "An initial estimate placed the number at 205" The number of what?
• "but rescue and aid workers cautioned that the survival rates for many of the 600 people still missing were slim" But then how do you get from 205 to 5,900?

If there's anything I can do to help you find a copyeditor, feel free to ask.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Carabinieri I addressed your initial points. I have a copyeditor in mind if you find it is still necessary.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a little more copyediting (feel free to revert anything you disagree with) and will be doing some more, but I think it might be best if you could get someone else to give it another once-over. I also feel like parts of the article presuppose a certain familiarity with the geography of Freetown or Sierra Leone most readers probably won't have. Maybe you could give a little more background here and there. Here are a few more issues/questions:

• The numbers in the infobox don't make sense to me. The second source claims there were 500 confirmed deaths and over 800 missing. That adds up to more than the 1,141 the infobox says are dead or missing. Presumably, more people were either confirmed dead or alive since that source was published. I'd suggest simply removing the number of people missing.
• "The lack of enforcement of a moratorium" I'm assuming this is referring to a moratorium on housing construction
• "to hasten evacuations from danger zones" were there evacuations? The article doesn't mention them.
• "Highly mobile, the saturated debris flow, carrying mud, large boulders, tree trunks, and other material, advanced toward Lumley Creek with a wall of flood water leading in front" Is this referring to the two mudslides described before? Both of them? What's Lumley Creek?
• "The same day, four other mudslides took place in Regent, Goderich, and Tacuguma" What are Goderich and Tacuguma? Can you give any more details on these incidents?
• How do Western Area Rural and Western Area Urban relate to Freetown?
• Per WP:MOSNUM, the article should generally use metric units.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Carabinieri I'll get back to work tomorrow and talk with K.e.coffman to see if he can copy-edit. If you find it appropriate, we can put the article "on hold" to work out these points raised.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, I've gone ahead and put the review on hold.--Carabinieri (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Carabinieri despite my delay, I have attended to the lastest questions/concerns. I will just wait for The Rambling Man's response to copy-editing and we should be good to go.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Carabinieri The Rambling Man has completed his copyediting and gave his final review here. Let me know if there is anything else I should do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for response and your work on the article. I have one more question: Floods are repeatedly mentioned in the lead, the background, etc. but there's no mention of floods actually taking place in 2017, at least not in the "Impact" section. Is there any information on this?

I've randomly checked a few of the sources:

• The BBC report in fn 2 doesn't mention Freetown's elevation or its population.
• The NYT report in fn 24 states that "320 people were buried on Tuesday afternoon". That would have been August 15. It also mentions that more mass graves were being planned.
• The link in fn 25 is dead.
• The source in fn 28 doesn't mention diarrhea or cholera.

I think this is close to being ready, but maybe you could recheck the sources, to make sure they all have the information attributed to them.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think, User:TheGracefulSlick?--Carabinieri (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The nominating editor won't be completing this review, but I can help finish anything that needs attending to. I didn't know the nominating editor, but I have worked before on a GA with K.e.coffman who is mentioned above by the reviewer nominating editor. I fixed the elevation claim, but I cannot speak to the others, as the note numbers have been reshuffled. Which ones again needed to be looked at? Please advise. Thanks!  spintendo  13:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A portion of text which was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material has been re-phrased.  spintendo  13:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed all of the dead links and assigned them freshly archived URL's. The Checklinks for this article now shows all white rows.  spintendo  16:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Carabinieri: Let me know if there is anything else that's needed to be done here. Thank you!  spintendo  02:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo:, thanks for taking this on. It's a real shame what happened with Graceful. I understand that sockpuppetry is a problem, but to throw out productive editors left and right the way we do nowadays is hardly helpful. Anyway, sorry for getting off-track. I think the way you re-organized parts of the article is helpful, but there are a few issues:

• The lead calls this "one of the most deadly and destructive disasters in decades". First, that's a little vague. Is this one of the deadliest in the world or in Sierra Leone or what? Secondly, there's no source for this claim.

✓Omitted: I've removed this bit of hyperbole.  spintendo  00:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be a contradiction concerning Freetown's elevation between the lead and the first section.

✓Clarified: Freetown is almost like the center of a bowl, with 400 meter high mountains surrounding it, but its very hilly, which accounts for the variations in height above sea level. At the beaches it is definitely at sea level but that quickly begins to rise. I omitted the mention in the lead so there is no disparity.  spintendo  00:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is still a little unclear to me. If there are beaches, it doesn't seem entirely correct to me to say that the elevation is 30 meters. I also wasn't able to find the information in the source, but maybe I'm just too stupid to use the map.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The parts of the city where people live and work are at about 30 meters whereas the beaches (where no one lives) are at sea level. But I agree with you that the way this is worded is confusing. I could change this to read as The peninsula where Freetown is located has a topography of "thick, wooded mountains which run parallel to the Atlantic for 25 miles." Located in and around this variegated topography, Freetown's elevation with regards to the Atlantic Ocean varies from coastal areas which are at sea level to approximately 350 meters above sea level in higher-ground areas. As far as the map, it can be difficult to activate, let me see if I can't find a better source.  spintendo  01:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is a map which shows the elevation. The only issue with that map is I'm not entirely sure where they are getting this information. The information looks correct when compared to other sources such as Google Maps, but the map doesn't state clearly the source of the info, so there is no telling where it's from.  spintendo  14:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• The way the "August 14th mudslides" is organized seems a little confusing. Nothing from "The disaster affected another 12 settlements..." on appears to refer specifically to the events in Regent.

✓Re-titled: I agree that the info in these sections does jump around a bit. I can rewrite as little or as much as you'd like, just let me know.  spintendo  00:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused. The article starts with Sugar Loaf mountain, then moves to Regent, Goderich, and Tacuguma, and then comes Sugar Loaf again. Do those 12 settlements include any of the previously mentioned places?--Carabinieri (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I've re-worded these. Let me know if they work.  spintendo  01:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• The order in the "Response" section also seems a little counterintuitive. Shouldn't "People initially used their bare hands" come before the information about ambulances and search teams?

✓Omitted: The part about using bare hands wasn't referenced, so I just removed it. If there are any other parts of this section which seem out of place let me know.  spintendo  00:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'd probably just say "UNICEF" instead of "United Nations Children's Fund", since that's what most people know it by.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Changed to UNICEF.  spintendo  00:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your patience. I've done a little more copyediting and re-organizing. Could you check that I didn't mess up anything? Otherwise, I think this looks good to go. Thanks again for stepping in.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've passed this nomination. Thanks again.--Carabinieri (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Airlines Flight 587/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 03:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, and hope that we can get it to GA status. Giving it a quick once-over makes it look like the article is already in pretty good shape. I didn't recognize the accident by the flight number alone, but it jogged my memory when I began reading the article. I distinctly remember being at my elementary school for a Veterans Day event and watching the newscast, and thinking it was another attack shortly after 9/11. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Thanks for taking this review. I remember that day. I remember the newscast and the feeling like we were being attacked again. Sad day. Thank you again. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review template

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lead

   I would either use "Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic" or "Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic" to clean up the grammar in the first sentence. My vote is for the former, as I don't think the capital portion is necessary to describe, but that's a style choice on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Accident

   State which company the aircraft was delivered to (I'm assuming American Airlines). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified #N14053 was delivered new to American Airlines on July 12, 1988.  Spintendo  10:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

1. I would move "On the day of the accident" to the beginning of the sentence, and then describe the configuration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Insert "(JAL)" behind your first use of Japanese Airlines to indicate that it is the acronym/shorthand for the airline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Do you have timings to include for the JAL flight (when it took off, when the controllers we cautioned)? I know you state the takeoffs are separated by roughly 1:40, but since much of the report focuses on by-the-second times, I think it is appropriate to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Make the tense consistent when describing the takeoff. It should say "and left the runway at 9:14:29" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   I would change "From takeoff" to "After takeoff" as you are describing a sequence of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Shouldn't the mean sea level acronym be capitalized? That is how I'm used to seeing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   From "just in" and have the sentence state "the JAL flight in front of it" as "just in" is a subjective measure of distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   I'm fairly unfamiliar with the parts describing the attachment of the stabilizer and rudder, but is lug the appropriate term? The only use of the word I can think of is lug nuts on wheels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified The correct name for this component is a main attachment lug which actually consists of two parts: the part of the fitting through which a pin passes to fasten mating parts, which is the lughole — and the area that immediately surrounds the lughole, which is the lug portion of the fitting.  Spintendo  07:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

1. I would rewrite the first sentence of the third paragraph, as it comes across slightly editorialized. I would remove "At the moment" and just state the the aircraft pitched downward after the svertical stabilizer detached. Additionally, I would remove the part about heading straight for Belle Harbor, because that seems to imply (at least in my mind) that it was flying consistently toward it, and not chaotically crashing out of the sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Was anyone/anything damaged from the separate engine impacts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified The left engine caused minor damage at the location where it was recovered, a gas station located at 441 Beach 129th Street about 800 feet north-northeast from the main wreckage area. The right engine was recovered partially embedded within a home and driveway at 414 Beach 128th Street, where the home and a boat parked in the home's driveway received severe damage. This was about 800 feet northeast of the main wreckage area.  Spintendo  10:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Investigation

   Initial terrorism concerns

   I never realized how serious the terrorism concerns were. From my memory (as an 11-year-old) I remember the newscasters talking about the possibility of terrorism immediately after the crash, but don't recall further widespread belief that it was terrorism (I would like to reiterate that I was 11, and terrorism concerns in New York City weren't at the forefront of my mind). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Reword the paraphrasing from Ted Lopatkiewicz. My personal opinion is to remove any direct quotation and just state that the memos claim was lessened by, and state the evidence. If you would like to keep the quotes, at least reword "ultimately evaporates" as that is a colloquialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I want the description of Jdey using his passport to stay consistent with the wording used by the Canadian memo, but if possible, make sure that the tense stays consistent with when the investigation took place. As the memo was from 6 months after the fact, it should state that Jdey "used his Canadian passport" as the action was already completed (according to the memo; it didn't play out that way) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified The Jdey memo was written in May 2002, but the statements repeated in the memo allegedly pertained to a time ostensibly before the accident occurred, so the phrase "was to use" would be correct in that context.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. NTSB investigation

   The section starts off with an immediate retelling of events. As this is about the NTSB investigation, I would preface it with that the NTSB found this information. I would combine the sub-sub sections into the overal NTSB investigation section. You have multiple times that you describe the First Officer's excessive rudder inputs, and I think that should be collected into one area in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   @AmericanAir88: Sorry if I was unclear on this guidance, but my intent wasn't met. My point is that in the start of the NTSB investigation section, it immediately jumps into a retelling of events, with no preface about this was the NTSB's finding. I think the section should start with (something to the effect of, I don't know the details): "On the afternoon of the crash, the NTSB launched an investigation into its causes. Over the next 3 months they conducted 349 interviews, and collected and reconstructed the 15,000 (no idea on the actual number) pieces of the aircraft." The information they found (about the 747, jet wake, etc.) should be in the Finding section (I know I had given guidance to remove the Finding section entirely, but I think moving all of the findings info to it could justify a separate sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Balon Greyjoy: I updated the beginning but fail to see the reason of removing the recount of events. The "findings" section is reactionary to the crash description. Could you please be more clearly on what you want me to do? Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   "was a cause of concern because they are used" I would change "because" to "as"  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   I would rewrite the contributing factors sentence, and break it up into several sentences. Personal choice, but I don't like the mid-sentence colon to begin listing factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Query It's unclear what is requested here. Could you rephrase what changes you'd like to be made? Thanks  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, I fixed the issue. The user wanted a re-write and I agree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you  Spintendo  23:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Victims

   Were any other types of pets killed on the ground? I noted the comments on the Talk page about the inclusion of the dogs as they were part of the accident report. My opinion to leave dogs out of the list of victims, or at least have them in a separate sentence, as I don't think they merit the same attention as people who were killed. But I understand that people disagree with me on this point, and don't think including the dogs invalidates the quality of this article/section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified Only two dogs were killed—one had been placed in a transport approved kennel and was flying as part of American's parcel service cargo transport, while the second dog was on the ground. No other domesticated animals were carried on the aircraft and no additional domesticated animals were known to have been killed or injured on the ground beyond the first 'ground' dog.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I would combine the first and third sentences of the seconds paragraph. Additionally, is there a better word than "relatives," as I'm sure some people friends meeting them at the airport. My take is "Friends and family of the passengers, some of whom were unaware of the crash, gathered at Las Américas International Airport." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done I've changed relatives but was unsure which sentences you wanted to combine. Please clarify.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You still managed to make the edit I was hoping for, even if I wasn't clear! My point was that the sections started out by just saying relatives gathered at the destination airport. It was a short sentence, and it's context wasn't very clear. Were they gathering because they were unaware of the crash, or in an act of solidarity with one another. It became clear later that it was the former, and I felt that it was best to lead with that, vs. having ambiguity initially. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I would remove the reference to "Heartbreak Hotel" and just that that the JFK Ramada Plaza had previously been used to house airplane victims. I think stating that it "became known" is a bit of an overstatement, as it may have been referred to as such by new agencies shortly after the crash, but it's not a universally recognized nickname for that hotel alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I would streamline the beginning of the baseball players sentences. My take is "Some early reports erroneously..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Remove "it turned out" and just state that "but Soriano was booked for a flight a few days later" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Make the description about Enrique Wilson a separate sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Change "12 Nov" to "November 12" to be consistent with the rest of the date naming throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No major issues. I put any comments in the previous section.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Standardize the date formats on all of your citations. There are a few examples (Buster Olney, the Allied Pilots Assosciation, and Kleinfield) of using the yyyy-mm-dd format, where the rest of your citations use the month name dd, yyy format.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   Add more information about the Stewart Bell reference.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   I have never seen the {{IMDb title}} template before. I like it.

   Glad to see someone else using the {{rp}} format to specify pages from a book.

   B. All in-line 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No concern. I'm glad that the History Channel and Discovery Channel are only cited to reference the airing of the show, and not used as reference material about the crash.

   C. It contains no original research:

   There aren't any citations for the second half of the second paragraph under the "Accident" section.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   There is only one for the second paragraph under NTSB investigation, and no citations for the testing of composite materials.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   There aren't any citations for the second half of the first paragraph under "Findings"  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No concern. Earwig lists a large amount of copied text, but it almost entirely quotes used in the article.

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No concern.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No concern.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No concern.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   The content of the article isn't likely to change, as (to the best of my knowledge) there are any pending future updates to the situation/reporting about the crash. It appears to have some back-and-forth on the inclusion of flags between Andrewgprout and Spintendo, but it is civil and no cause for concern. Looking at the discussion and my interpretation of of WP:MOSFLAG, my personal opinion is for the inclusion of flags.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No concern.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Thoughts on changing the caption slight to explain the inaccurate time on the picture about to take off? To someone unfamiliar with Daylight Savings Time, I think "it had not been adjusted for Standard Time" could be a little confusing.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   Are there any other pictures of the memorial available? The current one doesn't show the entire wall, and is pretty dark. Also, I would change the caption to something more descriptive than "Memorial."  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   Not a huge fan of the new picture, but it's definitely an improvement over the previous one. But, you work with what you have! The caption is much better. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

   Shorten the caption of the picture with the vertical stabilizer. Just use "NTSB" and don't use the entire name of the organization, as the acronym is spelled out in the lead section.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I have completed my initial review, and am placing the review on hold. You have done a good job with this article; the only issues that I see are lack of citations in certain parts and a reorganization of the NTSB investigation sub-section. Please let me know if you have any questions. Just a heads up, I will be out of contact January 19-22; great if we can get this review wrapped up by then, but no concern if we need to put anything on hold until afterwards. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: No rush, but I'm ready to pass the article if you or someone else can get the final citation comments done. I know you have vacation coming up, so I'll hold off on expecting changes until the end of the month. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: I will finish the citation edits very soon. This review should be finished before I go away. No need to hold off. I’ll get to it soon. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope that no one feels rushed to meet vacation deadlines. The GA review can wait if need be. There is still quite a bit of missing references here, as well as other areas which should be addressed. Those include:

1. The article spends an entire paragraph discussing concerns over delamination of the vertical stabilizer. It describes in depth what theories thought about the possibility of the composite material not being strong enough. Then at the end of the paragraph, it states how it turns out that the composite material was strong enough all along. Does the article really need this diversion?
2. Another paragraph discusses the many witnesses who claimed seeing the aircraft on fire as it dove towards the ground. The article then states that those eyewitnesses were incorrect. So why is this being repeated?
3. The engines caused minor damage to a gas station and major damage to one home and a boat — not to "homes (plural) and a gas station".  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
4. The claim that American Airlines never explained to crew members on the dangers of heavy use on the rudder, leading the first officer likely to not understand the aircraft's response to full rudder at high airspeeds or the mechanism by which the rudder rolls a transport-category airplane. I have no clue where this claim is coming from, it's not cited. It's essentially saying the co-pilot doesn't know how to use the rudder — only problem is he did know how to use it, it was just used excessively. American did explain the problems with rudder usage, but the main issue was that they taught using the rudder for wake turbulence recovery, which should not have been done. Did anyone have any ideas or concerns with what to do with these areas, please advise. Thanks!  Spintendo  15:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks for providing a second look. I was only picking up on the uncited information; it's good to have someone else checking the article for other issues. I hope it didn't come across as I was rushing the review; I meant it as more that I wouldn't be enforcing a hard 7-day deadline for the article to either pass or fail, regardless of the circumstances. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: and @Balon Greyjoy:,

I am writing this from the airport and will probably not be active until tomorrow or Saturday. Ill keep updating you. Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Section break

@Balon Greyjoy: and @Spintendo:,

I am back from my vacation and I am all done with all changes you needed me to address. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I feel that the article is ready for GA status. I disagree with your comment that there shouldn't be information about the incorrect theory of the delamination of the vertical stabilizer; I don't think including that info detracts from the article. As you were heavily involved in critiquing and editing this article, do you have any issues to address with the article as it stands? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If I gave the impression that the delamination issue should not be mentioned then I apologize. I just felt that an entire paragraph on the issue may have been unwarranted. The delamination issue, while pertinent for investigators to address, was always a red herring. The tests done by the NTSB and Airbus did show translaminar fractures and delaminations of the lug in question, but tests showed that the delaminations alone did not contribute to any weakening of the lug, and that it was aerodynamic loads which caused the lug to fracture with the delamination not being a factor. The report states:

The accident lug and the tested lugs fractured because of a tensile static overload. The physical evidence and the structural analyses showed that the accident lug’s and the tested lugs’ fracture features were consistent with a cleavage-tension failure observed in composite-bolted joints. The structural analyses also indicated that, after the right rear main attachment lug fractured, all of the remaining lugs fractured sequentially. The fracture of the right rear main attachment lug initiated a nearly instantaneous separation of the vertical stabilizer from the aft fuselage.

So in other words, delamination is a possible effect of using composite-bonded materials, but that delamination in this case wasn't a factor — as aerodynamic loading initiated the failure of the lug. I just questioned needing a full paragraph to state this. But then again, the Jdey issue, another red herring, itself gets its own paragraph, so perhaps the length shouldn't be an issue here either. Beyond that I don't have any other concerns, and I think everyone here has done a great job. Thanks!  Spintendo  15:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Awaiting more notification. Take your time if you spot any more issues. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jon Rose/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hiya111 (talk · contribs) 14:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll be having a read of this today! (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great, glad to be working with you!  Spintendo  22:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Very interesting - his music is quite different to what I'm used to! Here are my initial thoughts on the article.. :)

Lead section

• It's slightly on the short side, but nonetheless provides a sufficient overview - is there something he is best known for, that you could put here? Perhaps his title(s) of work.
• Might be worth mentioning/linking to Extended technique for his non-standard use of the violin. This is his technique for free improvisation.

Y I've added extended technique to the Free improvisation section's hatnote.  Spintendo  08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tony Mitchell is another musician so link to his Wiki page.

Y WL added.  Spintendo  08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Early career

• Will the title "Early life" or perhaps "Biography" be more appropriate?

Y Changed to Early life.  Spintendo  08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I looked at the source [2] and couldn't find that he studied on a scholarship (just says he "studied the violin")

Y Scholarship source added.  Spintendo  08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Rose was active in the UK.." - active doing what? Performing, composing? Might want to expand.

Y Expanded.  Spintendo  08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• This section is a bit thin - is there a bit more about his early work that could be added?

Improvising musician

• The first paragraph is kind of an intro to the Free improvisation article. Fine - but careful not to diverge too far from the person in question, Jon Rose.
• This section is also a bit thin - is there more info on his improvisation ability/music?

Compositions

• This part is probably best written in prose without bullet points. Bullets are fine for short titles/one line sentences but I don't think it works here.

Y Changed to prose.  Spintendo  08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Since his orchestral compositions are in date order, we could do a chronological account of his works in prose (eg. Rose's first composition was [..], a variety of genres [..] Several years later, his next work was different [..] influenced by this technique). You get the idea.
• Same goes for radio compositions. I think it's worth expanding his style, technique, arrangement etc. See John Cage for an example.
• Consider doing a section at the end, listing just the titles and years of the orchestral compositions/radio compositions.

Environmental works

• The list of works are shorter but again, it's better presented in prose without bullet points.
• Some of these works are unusually interesting.. it's possible we can expand and describe their compositions more. What do you think?

Live performances

• "Rose's live performances have included multimedia content, including text.." - What does this mean? "Multimedia" is quite a broad term - might need to narrow it down and include examples used in his performances.
• As before, his multimedia work should be presented in prose.

Instrument builder / Reception / Author / Discography

• This section is fine - could do with a little beefing up
• Images of his instruments might be nice
• More internal Wiki links
• Reception could be renamed "Recognition" and that can includes awards and residencies
• "Author" section should be renamed to "Bibliography" and perhaps mention the book titles earlier in the article?
• Why isn't much of the discography mentioned earlier? I know there's probably not a lot to be said of them but we shouldn't ignore it.

References

• The number of in-line citations were sufficient.
• Some of the references in the list are missing their website titles and retrieval dates. Titles, at least, should be provided.
• I haven't checked each source, but 82 doesn't work and 87 goes to an irrelevant essay.

That's all for a first pass! I hope you find this useful but sorry to say, it looks like a lot more is needed to bring this to GA-level. Glad to hear your thoughts though. Lizzy (talk 22:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, it's much appreciated! I'll pass these recommendations on to the editor who helped me to craft the article. We'll try again for GA in the future after these changes have been implemented. Please feel free to close the review. Thanks again for your time! Regards,  Spintendo  08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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.