Talk:Minneapolis wireless internet network

Minneapolis wireless internet network has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 10, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that it's possible to receive a wireless internet signal almost anywhere in Minneapolis, except on the city's numerous lakes?

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- DQ (t) (e) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Done -- DQ (t) (e) 19:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

To Work On list (specifics)

Use the templates in the show box below to comment on how the tasks are going.

Templates to use

{{Fixed}} — Fixed
{{Added}} — Added
{{Not done}} — Not done
{{Not sure}} — Not sure
{{Doing}} — Doing...
{{Isdoing}} — Example is doing...
{{Tick}}, produces the tick alone — Y
{{Cross}}, produces the cross alone — N
{{Done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Done}} — Done
{{Not done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Not done}} — ✗ Not done
{{Thank you}} — Thank you
{{Resolved}}, tick with additional message —
Resolved

(I don't think you're done with the review, but I hope you don't mind if I start work on these. It's okay, right?)

It's all good and that actually gives me a better chance at passing you :P -- DQ (t) (e) 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing: The whole lead is unsourced.

I wrote the lead under the assumption that none of the information within it was controversial enough to warrant citation, and as it's a direct summary of the article's contents, all facts mentioned are definitely cited elsewhere. I'm basing that on WP:LEADCITE (as well as its practical application throughout the encyclopedia, such as the three most recent TFAs (though not the fourth most recent TFA)) but obviously, I can go through and place citations in the lead if you think it would help. Again, I'm personally not a huge fan of citations in the lead, but, really, that's just me. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...do see you point, and I have seen some of this before. I will take a second look over it when I do my next chunk of reviewing, and I will be looking for items that aren't sourced that are almost statistical (or are too detailed) for the lead. I'm just more worried about extreme overdetailing and sourcing issues as it's not your idea. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUTURE: "Nonetheless, the firm is making a $1.2 million profit yearly" that's a bit of a guess, no?

I don't see it as a conflict with FUTURE. Here, let me provide you with the text from the source, which I realize is in a locked database. "Three years into offering service, the Minneapolis Wi-Fi network is showing a $1.2 million annual profit and has about 20,000 customers." -Alexander, Brandt. 2010. The source states that the network is currently making that profit, not that they will be. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, saw the soruce, I don't like the fact that it estimates or seems to assume that that is the yearly profit. Remember if I'm looking this up for the first time and not 100% fluent in english, I could think that it means they have 1.2M yearly and that's going to continue. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed it so that it isn't a generalization now, but merely the fact implied by the article. Should be good. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 04:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HISTMERGE: Your article that you originally had, needs to be merged by an administrator instead of copypaste.

Drat. Okay, thanks. I'll place the tag on the talk page and we'll see what happens. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but ya...it needs it, I will ping an admin on IRC when I remember to get it done for you. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fixed! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 13:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing: starting a quote with '"is always' doesn't let the sentence flow.

Actually make that the first two sentences of Emergency Preparedness as confusing.

Paraphrased the quote and (ideally) clarified those two sentences. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- DQ (t) (e) 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing: "the network's usage did mushroom from" mushroom?

Guess who has two thumbs and can be overly flowery when writing. *this guy* Changed to 'expand'. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) -- DQ (t) (e) 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: Your library links are locking us out, and if you google the article name, you can usually get an article. Could we replace those dead links please? -- DQ (t) (e) 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All replaced with links from the Star Tribune, or Business Wire. Ref #9 isn't available in the free full form, but I linked to an official Star Tribune archive of it that cites the first two paragraphs or so and offers it for purchase. I hope that's okay. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 07:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Units of measure

It mentions 'miles' without conversion. A value in km would make the article more accessible.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 03:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have one question for you, this is a brand new article, why did you nominate it for Good Article already and not let some other people wiegh in on it a bit first? (This is just an interest to me and doesn't effect the review at all) -- DQ (t) (e) 02:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a hugely well-known topic, for starters, so it doesn't have an automatic audience. Not that I'm overly hasty or any such thing, but in the week or so that it's been up, it has been edited by one person other than myself, an IP who changed one of the URLs of one of the sources from a locked database to the newspaper's website. Meanwhile, I am in the process of getting this article on DYK, and I think that it'd probably be a good idea not to pass this article (provided that I get it to GA quality) until it's up there and gets the visibility which might allow other editors to work with it. Above all, though, I think I just had a lot of faith in this article, and maybe a little pride, too. I've helped get other articles to GA status before, but they've always been preexisting ones. I wrote this article over a few days, and I just kind of wanted to keep up the swift momentum and jump to GA ASAP. I know that it's happened plenty of times in the past that articles have gone from sandbox to GA before they hit DYK and I thought it'd make a decent goal for myself. That was a little random and rambling. Sorry. Hope it answers the question. Thanks for your thorough review! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 03:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and plus I didn't expect anyone to review this article for several months, so I figured I should add my name to the queue early. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 04:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on DYK now. A few editors did some copyediting stuff to it, and I think it came out in a much better condition than when it went in. Just FYI. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 16:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job :) This is now a GA. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Star Tribune

BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 03:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minneapolis wireless internet network. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minneapolis wireless internet network. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]