Jump to content

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

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

Source

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-portland-riders-on-tiny-bikes-go-zoobombing-1405909803 ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Sarah Mirk (May 28, 2009), "Secret Sculpture Officially Cements Once-Fringe Zoobombers Into City", The Portland Mercury

I'd like to collaborate for a dual GA and DYK if possible. The Portland Mercury has some excellent material for hooks eg. "...that the group who created People's Bike Library were investigated on suspicion of being a terrorist cell?" ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Fantastic, glad you're interested in collaborating on this article! I'm pretty sure the sources already used in the article have been extracted for details and used to their fullest potential, but since there are only six, do you want to have a thorough review of the Wikipedia article and sources to see if there are any changes to be made before we start incorporating additional sources? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I haven't spent much time at DYK in a while, but I think major article expansions are required for submitting DYK hooks. I'm not sure this article will be expanded enough to qualify, but we'll see. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making a GA is a DYK threshold by itself: WP:DYKRULES. We would have seven days to propose the DYK after receiving GA. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should any of the sources in the "External links" section be incorporated into the article's prose. They aren't exactly ideal, so I don't want to add them, only to have editors take issue with their inclusion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any issue with RACC or Public Art Archive, not so sure about the others ☆ Bri (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Thanks for your work so far. Let me know when you're done with your review, and what else we might need to do before moving forward to GA nom? Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Bri: With the copy edit complete, I'm feeling pretty good about the state of this article. Do you have any objections to me initiating a co-nom? I don't mind waiting if you were planning on doing some additional research or anything. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free, I see you handled this before e.g. Satan's Testicle, figuratively that is LOL ☆ Bri (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bakfiets

[edit]

@Jonesey95: Thanks for taking a look at this article. Are you sure "bakfiets" is singular? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Jonesey95: Just FYI, I've requested a formal copy edit from GOCE, if you have any interest. Either way, thanks again for your help! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

I've added a photograph of the sculpture. A bad image is better than no image, but if someone is able to replace the current image with a better one, but all means. The article can only have one photograph depicting the contemporary work of art, under fair use. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the question here out of convenience: Are the piled bicycles a permanent part of the sculpture, or are they removed, ridden and replaced? This wasn't clear from the sources I have seen. It has to do with the descriptions of the loops too. Are they there to hold cables locking the bikes in? Also, if this is so, who controls the locks? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume the bicycles are used and replaced, but I'm not 100% sure. I've never seen them used, or watched a Zoobomb event. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on People's Bike Library of Portland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 17:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:People's Bike Library of Portland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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


Quick fail criteria assessment

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

Main review

[edit]

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

Lead

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

Background

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

Description

The source says "mini-bike" which I think is a functional child's bicycle. Definitely not a motorized mini-bike. Another source would help here. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answering myself, Walking Portland says (p. 61) that the sculpture is made entirely of functional bicycles. Other sources confirmed Zoobombers prefer tiny bicycles. So I think the wording is better the way I corrected it. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the gold-plated bike is/was functional, but to be honest, it is kind of difficult to tell. As Bri mentioned, one source says the sculpture is made "entirely of functional bicycles", but I am not sure this is taking the bike on top into consideration. This link (not a reliable source) has an couple pictures, including an up-close photograph of the bike on top, but sourcing does not say specifically, as far as I can tell. I don't think we should worry too much. I changed "mini-bike" to "miniature bicycle" to keep the language encyclopedic, but I don't feel strongly either way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Miniature" still makes me a little uneasy as it sounds like some kind of scale model, not a (once) rideable machine. But it's merely a quibble. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A collection of bikes for children, intended for use by riders at weekly Zoobomb meetings," — The way the sentence starts off makes it sound as if they are put there for children to use. Suggest rephrasing to "A collection of children's bikes, intended..."

History

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

Reception

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

— Appears compliant with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

b (citations to reliable sources):

— Sources appear reliable, especially in context.

c (OR):

— No OR seen.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

— No apparent copyvios.

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):

— Article covers the major aspects.

b (focused):

— Article is focused.

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

5. It is stable — Article is stable

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

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

— Images are appropriately licensed.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

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

7. Overall:

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

"miniature"

[edit]
Resolved

@Bri: I saw your note re: inclusion of the word "miniature". I figured "miniature bicycle" was more encyclopedic than "mini-bike", but I'm open to other options. What about replacing "miniature" with "small" thought the article? I do see your point re: "miniature" possibly implying scale model, which is incorrect. BTW, congrats and on the GA and thanks for your help completing and nominating this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Small" sounds good to me. Congrats to you too, as the heavy lifter on this one ☆ Bri (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Bike_Library_of_Portland/Archive_1&oldid=833460211"