Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Boston/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Dana boomer 13:52, 21 March 2013 [1].

Boston

[edit]
Notified: Pentawing, Hertz1888, Loodog, WikiProject Boston, WikiProject Cities

I am nominating this featured article for review because it seems very far from meeting current FA criteria, and the issues raised haven't been addressed. The (unprotected) article has been subject to many non-constructive edits since its last review in 2007. --ELEKHHT 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the most obvious problems are:

  • 1a.) Prose issues: Lead clumsy repeating "Boston" 16 times, and flood of statistics not mentioned in the article: "unofficial Capital, "21st largest", "tenth-largest metropolitan area", "fifth-largest Combined Statistical Area", "largest in British America", "third largest city in the British Empire", "international center", "leading finance center", "11th in the Z/Yen top", "number one for innovation", "world livability [...] 36th globally". Likely many more issues as reader feedback is 2.5 of 5 for "well written" (sample N=159)
  • 1b.) Comprehensive: The culture section doesn't provide a good summary of culture in Boston
  • 1c-d.) Well-researched & Neutral: Unreferenced and disputed content: 4 "citation needed" tags
    • Done
  • 4.) Focus issues:
    • Navbarfarm : 12 navbars at the bottom.
      • Done - Whatever navbars do not have a specific link to the actual article have been removed. PentawingTalk 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know this is marginal, but I still find the 10 navbars bewildering. And the "Mayors of cities with populations exceeding 100,000 in Massachusetts" sounds really trivial. --ELEKHHT 10:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have removed the navbars pertaining to the "Mayors of cities with populations exceeding 100,000 in Massachusetts" and "All-American City Award." However, since I didn't create the navbars I have no idea what articles those navbars are actually intended for (and they seem relevant to this article). If you feel that 8 navbars is still too many, I will defer to your judgement as to which ones should be kept. Now that you brought it up, should there be a standard as to when a navbar is appropriate? PentawingTalk 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good question. I could only find two essays on the topic with some good general principles and advice: WP:Navigation templates and WP:Avoid template creep. Some could be nominated for deletion, but the question is really which ones are useful for this article? Is it likely that any reader would wish to navigate through all the localities of the Northeast megalopolis or Municipalities and communities of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, United States? Btw, at the 2007 FAR there were 4 navbars. In any case, I think with 8 is much better than with 12. Thanks also for all the other improvements. --ELEKHHT 03:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both remaining DABs. Remaining entries are redirects, most likely caused by some templates or navbars outside the article itself. Bare URL also fixed. The other URL points to a questionable source anyway, so needs further checking or a complete replacement. Just some minor tweaks, i'll leave the deeper content questions to the article's regular editors. GermanJoe (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I still see several dead link tags (93, 94, 100, 101, 206) in the article. These should be taken care of while this is at FAR. The Internet Archive may have copies of the dead-linked pages; if the Boston Globe page isn't available, I could probably find it with the library access I have. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current dead links refer to US Census data, particularly for 2000. At the moment, it is probably best to look at the 2010 dataset. But is there a bot somewhere that is doing this (the original 2000 census passages, if I recall correctly, were done by a bot)? PentawingTalk 05:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations - some paragraphs still lack a final citation (first history, and a few more down the article). I wouldn't expect every tiny trivial detail to be sourced, but those broad aspects should have atleast a general source, where the info was taken from. Some narrative may be obvious for a Boston citizen, but still needs citation for the general readership. I'll try to help with another readthrough later. GermanJoe (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further issues - aside from the sourcing issues, which are currently adressed, there are other aspects, which need more work:
  • Several sections seem to focus on Boston as a fascinating and great city with a rich history (examples: parts of History, especially the foundation after "The Massachusetts Bay Colony's first governor ...", aswell as "Accent" and "Crime"). Qualifiers like "highly", "important", "excellent" and all statements of opinion need to be backed up by a reliable source and phrased as neutral as possible.
  • WP:SUMMARY should also be followed more closely. Several long sections contain a lot of details, that would be better presented in their sub-articles.
  • Lists throughout the article need checking. Questionable lists of little notability or unclear scope or sourcing should atleast be trimmed down to the most notable elements.
    • Can you be specific as to which section such lists exists? Otherwise, I am not entirely sure which sections should be looked at (a list which seems questionable to one might not appear so to someone else). PentawingTalk 06:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Travel guides and similar sources are only acceptable for common, uncontroversial facts. Needs double-checking for WP:RS (example: the second lead sentence "The largest city in New England, Boston is regarded as the unofficial "Capital of New England" for its economic and cultural impact on the entire New England region" is subjective WP:WEASEL and sourced with a travel book).
    • Passage concerning "the unofficial Capital of New England" has been removed until a non-travel source is found. I am looking through other sections for weasel words (though this issue appears to be tied to first of the "Further issues" pertaining to neutral phrasing). PentawingTalk 07:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole "Accent" section has little encyclopedic content and could be removed. The accent is already mentioned in "Culture", the remaining info is trivia or too detailed for a summary article.
  • (optional) the first lead para reads a bit dry and not very engaging. I suggest to trim out some of the statistical data (or move it further down in the lead), which is already covered in the infobox and the main text.

Besides the amount of concerns the article has a lot of great content. But like many city or country articles, a lot of content gets added, that is either not sourced, a bit too subjective or too detailed. GermanJoe (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read this article more or less at random, and have a few comments:
    • The article has lots of outdated data - pretty much every 'recent' figure should be updated to 2012 or 2013.
    • A fair amount of material isn't referenced
    • "In the early 21st century, the city has become an intellectual, technological, and political center." - hasn't this always been the case?
    • "and was ranked the 99th most expensive major city in the world in a 2008 survey of 143 cities" - this can be updated
    • "Owing to its early founding, Boston is very compact." - seems something of an over-statement given that Boston has suburban sprawl, and isn't terribly compact compared to many cities in Europe, Asia and the Middle East
    • "is one of the very few in the country so pure as to be exempt from federal filtration requirements" - is 'exempt' the right word here? (which suggests its explicitly excluded) - 'not subject to' or similar might be better
    • "Fog is somewhat common" - 'somewhat common' seems contradictory
      • Done. 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Classified as an Alpha-global city by GaWC studies, Boston is placed among the top 30 cities in the world - there are lots of different city indexes, and it's not sensible to just pick out one. Boston does generally rank highly in these indexes, but its position varies.
    • "Tourism comprises a large part of Boston's economy, with tourists spending $7.9 billion in 2004" - this should be updated, and seems to warrant more than just a sentence (eg, what share of these tourists are domestic and international, and what do they travel to see in Boston?).
      • The tourism passage in the "Economy" section is meant to mention the economic impact of tourism on Boston's economy. It is not meant to discuss what these tourists are visiting (which can be found in the "Culture" section). Nevertheless, the economic impact in dollars has been updated. PentawingTalk 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images - already improved, just some more quibbles:

Transportation - Looking through "transportation":

  • air travel seems underrepresented with just 1 line of text.
  • the Port of Boston (or other nearby sea ports) should be briefly mentioned, even if it is technically outside the city proper.
    • See above comment pertaining to the air travel section. 04:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Bicycling, with a commuting percentage of just 2 percent, is given undue weight and too many details.

GermanJoe (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation cleanup - Some "old" references seem to be no longer used and should be moved to "Further reading", if they are no longer directly needed. The sources in question are: Boston (1909), Downst (1916), Gershkoff (2004), Harris (1999), Jones (1975), Seasholes (2003), Shand-Tucci (1999), Snow (1828), Vanderwarker (1982). I would move them myself, but maybe some of them are still useful for inline-citations. By the way, you can install this great script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to see such citation problems highlighted in red in the article. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article came a long way and is undoubtedly much better now as result of the FAR. All highly visible issues I raised initially have been solved. Thanks to Pentawing for his very hard work. There are surely some small issues left and some structural Wikipedia-wide issues as well.

Minor issues:

  • Lead: " population of 626,000 in 2011 according to the U.S. Census". That cannot be correct as the Census was in 2010, so 2011 figures must be projections
  • Climate: text indicates "The city averages 42.5 inches (1,080 mm) of precipitation a year". But the table shows 43.7 (1,110).
  • Demographics: "median income for a family was $61,035. Males had a median income of $52,544 versus $46,540 for females". This doesn't make sense to me. If individuals earn almost as much as families, it would imply that most Bostonians are single. The reference indicates "Per capita income of $33,158" so the second sentence is certainly wrong.
    • The income data came directly from the US Census Bureau. However, the passage concerning male and female workers has been specified as being directed to "full-time year-round" as opposed to all workers (which include part-time seasonal). PentawingTalk 05:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government: Voter registration figures in the table are 2008, but the rest of the section already refers to 2012 election outcomes.
  • Transport: "Nicknamed "The Walking City" [...] 13% of the population commutes by foot, making it the highest percentage of pedestrian commuters in the country out of the major American cities". It should be specified that this is 2000 data, and what major city means (population above 250K, 500K ?). There is also more recent data available showing 14% for 2009.
  • Further reading: could the four volumes of Memorial History of Boston be simply placed into one line? Also the publication year for vol.1 is unlikely to be later than for vol.2.
  • External links: duplicate link to Vikivoyage, both inline-link and a link in the box
link to "Open Space Plan 2002–2006" seems aleatory. Surely there are dozens of council policies equally relevant.

Wikipedia-wide issues:

  • Stuff inclusionism, in particular towards the bottom of the article is a general problem: we have 9 navbars, 5 portals, 25 further readings,
  • Postcard style image in the infobox. I find these unattractive, pushing important info down the screen and the individual images always end up being duplicated in the article anyway. My preference is for a simple skyline or aerial image, but understand consensus might differ.
  • Demographic history: I think a graph would be much more useful than an endless table, but again this is probably not yet a commonly accepted standard at FAs

In any case I am satisfied with the progress, and it will be up to the FA director, or his delegates to close or further pursue this FAR. -ELEKHHT 07:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports - merged and checked (assuming the core data was OK) the list of sport clubs and moved the result to "Sports in Boston". Keeping such lists in two articles just makes one redundant and maintaining the data more difficult. GermanJoe (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue within the demographics section: "But as of 2010, in part due to the housing crash, as well as increased efforts to make more affordable housing more available the minority population has rebounded. This may also have to do with an increased Latino population and more clarity surrounding U.S. Census statistics, which indicate a Non-Hispanic White population of 47 percent (some reports give slightly lower figures)." I find the statement given, highly speculative and poorly referenced, and I think it could have been worded better anyway. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (status) - all my previous comments have been adressed, mostly thanks to Pentawing's edits and cleanup. Considering this is a 2007 article promoted under a vastly different mindset, i see no major outstanding concerns. More minor polishing is always possible with regular talkpage activity. GermanJoe (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Boston/archive1&oldid=1076192320"