Template:Did you know nominations/Bay Area Bike Share
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bay Area Bike Share
[edit]
* ... that Bay Area Bike Share, the first regional bike sharing service in Northern California, opened to the public in five cities on August 29, 2013?
- ... that Bay Area Bike Share, the first large-scale bike sharing service deployed on the West Coast of the United States, opened to the public in five cities on August 29, 2013?
Created by Mariordo (talk). Self nominated at 16:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC).
New, long enough, within policy, no copyvio, no QPQ needed. Hook doesn't have an immediate ref in article (see 3b—that it's "first" needs to be cited from a reliable source and then footnoted at the end of its sentence in the article). Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ♔ 05:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Czar, thanks for your throughout review. About the issue you raised I agree the "first" claim is not supported in the article. As supported by these two sources (here and here), the Bay Area bikesharing operation is the first regional system in the U.S. that services more than just a single city or adjacent cities (for example Capital Bikeshare serves Washington D.C. and Arlington County, but they are adjacent - the Bike-sharing Blog explains in more detail why it is the first of its kind). Nevertheless, as illustrated by the second source, the explanation is not straightforward. So I see two options:
- a. Drop the "first" word from the hook, and simply state that "....Bay Area Bike Share, a regional bike sharing service in Northern California, opened to the public in five cities on August 29, 2013?
- b. Add a paragraph in the article (the lead?) explaining what makes this system different from others in North America (as explained in the second ref). My concern with this option is if the source can be considered a reliable source.
- I await for your feedback to move forward. Thanks again.--Mariordo (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Mercury News source is okay, but the Blogspot one isn't. If the claim isn't in a secondary source, we can't add it to the article or the hook (so "b" is out). (By the way, the lead/lede should be a summary of the rest of the article whenever possible, so ideally any addition would be in the body of the article with a footnote.) Option "a" isn't great either, as the hook won't be very interesting as stated. I recommend finding another hook that would meet the criteria, and verifying that everything in the hook is within the article and everything within the article is cited within reliable sources. czar ♔ 18:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Following your orientation, I found reliable sources to support the "first" claim (actually there are several "first"). I added this content to the article, and reorganized a bit following the MOS to leave the lead as a summary of the key facts. As a result, I want to proposed to options for the hook (to keep it short) as supported by the RSs:
*... that Bay Area Bike Share, the first regional bike sharing service in the United States servicing more than just a single city or adjacent cities, opened to the public in five cities on August 29, 2013?*... that Bay Area Bike Share, the first large-scale bike sharing service deployed on the West Coast of the United States, opened to the public in five cities on August 29, 2013?
- There is still room for trimming the hook if you considered the character limit was exceeded (I do not know if blank spaces are counted, but both options are around 200 characters long including blanks). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'm hesitant about all three refs (currently ref3, ref4, and ref5) as they're cited as they're direct quotes from someone affiliated with the program and not the research of a secondary source. So it's fine for us taking them at their word, but it doesn't mean the fact is true. I'd recommend rephrasing those parts of the article that rely on it to be less definitive. (Note that Ref4 even says "according to" instead of confirming their source—it's a gray claim.) Something more definitive would work better for the hook (e.g., that the Share connects X cities with rental bikes). Also you can remove the dates at the end of the hooks to get it under 200 chars. Thanks for your patience. czar ♔ 23:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Czar. I think you are being overly rigorous about the sources, in particular with ref3 from UC Berkeley. The University is not a partner but instead will monitor the system (like an auditor). Besides, Susan Shaheen is an academic authorithy in bikesharing around the world (see here). So I propose we keep the hook supported by UCB (about the first in the West Coast), trimmed to 200 words.--Mariordo (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'm hesitant about all three refs (currently ref3, ref4, and ref5) as they're cited as they're direct quotes from someone affiliated with the program and not the research of a secondary source. So it's fine for us taking them at their word, but it doesn't mean the fact is true. I'd recommend rephrasing those parts of the article that rely on it to be less definitive. (Note that Ref4 even says "according to" instead of confirming their source—it's a gray claim.) Something more definitive would work better for the hook (e.g., that the Share connects X cities with rental bikes). Also you can remove the dates at the end of the hooks to get it under 200 chars. Thanks for your patience. czar ♔ 23:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You're right about ref3 and I'm okay with using Shaheen as an authority. The other refs, though, should attribute those "first" statements to who said them, since they're basically unverified. Can you update those, and then edit the original hook to the language you prefer and strike out the other hooks? czar ♔ 00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
