Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boston, Massachusetts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Boston, Massachusetts

This article has gone through a failed FAC and two peer reviews. Since then, the article has seen a lot of improvement. The question now becomes: is the article ready to be featured? Pentawing 03:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's good. It's really good. No reservations about using this as a model for articles on American cities. Jkelly 03:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Pentawing has built this to a great article, with outstanding leadership. Kudos to Pentawing. Fg2 04:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, excellent Everyking 04:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good. I cleaned up a few typos, but nothing big. Well-referenced, nice pictures, thorough content. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 05:24
• Support User:Nichalp/sg 05:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's very, very, very close to being there. However, there are a few minor points to hit:
  • In a few places (specifically the ==History== section), the prose is choppy, and there are a few instances of subject/verb disagreement—specifically the first section in History. The colonists weren't founded on 9/17/1630, the city was...but the way the sentence is written makes it sound like the city had always been there and the colonists were discovered on that date. :)
  • Look out for single-sentence paragraphs. I caught a couple of them; either merge them into an adjacent paragraph or expand them.
  • I'm not entirely sure that "State and federal agencies" and "Crime" deserve their own subsections under ==Law and Government==. Rather than the 4 short paragraphs that are there now, could they be merged into 2 or 3 longer ones simply within the confines of ==Law and Government==?
  • This was pointed out to me on my talk page during the Cleveland FAC, so I don't know if it's a legit objection...but census figures from the 2000 Census should probably be in past tense, seeing as they're going on six years old in a few months.
  • Under ==Education==, there are some hanging right parentheses; are they missing a left pair, or are they just an oversight?

Overall, very good work. I'd be glad to help out in any way with this, seeing as how a city article I was intricately involved with just went through FAC. Take care -- PacknCanes | say something! 07:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think I have taken care of the problems, but I did it very quickly. Hence, I need someone else to check my work. Pentawing 07:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's been checked, and you did take care of them. I did a little more copyediting to smooth over some of the prose, but it looks excellent now. Support; great job. PacknCanes | say something! 19:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)]

• Support - Excellent work! A couple of things to consider

• Explain BosWash rather than link it or just delete it. Something like "Boston has begun to resemble other parts of the continuous string of Northeast seaboard cities dubbed the BosWash megalopolis." I went ahead and changed it, but it may not need to be there
• An explanation of the Brahmins may be helpful for people unfamiliar with the term, though you do describe their wealth
• I pay my gas bill to NSTAR as well! I don't know, are there multiple providers?
• The ePodunk reference is pretty lame. I understand the NPOV desire, but...
• There are a few red links. Not a big deal, but there's only a few!

InvictaHOG 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I did some copyediting to address these issues except for the ePodunk reference (to maintain NPOV), and electricity and gas providers (I am only aware of NSTAR and KeySpan). Pentawing 00:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• NSTAR provides gas to much of Boston. I don't know about KeySpan, but I'd check to make sure that your list is complete. As for ePodunk, a review of their rankings shows Boston as the top college town among cities with more than 300,000 people, not the top college town. They do not compare head to head across populations as far as I saw. I think that you should either find another source or change the assertion InvictaHOG 13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• I reworded the ePodunk assertion to note that Boston is at the top of the 300,000 people or more category. Pentawing 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a minor (perhaps petty) quibble, so I won't make this an objection: the infobox stikes me as absurdly large. Either the (rather non-descriptive) photo needs to be chopped, or something needs to be trimmed elsewhere. Also, it would be nice if it sat flush with the side of the page. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I replaced the image with one of the Bay Bay skyline and resized is to 250px. However, I can't be able to have it flush with the side of the page since the infobox is within another template that someone else created . The only way to solve this is to move the infobox into the article itself and have an admin delete the unused template. As for the infobox size, this can't be helped since it is based on another format that is being used at other city articles (e.g. Louisville, Kentucky and Los Angeles, California). Pentawing 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: This page has been greatly improved since the last time it was a featured article candidate. Wonderful work, Pentawing.--AaronS 15:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article has seen some major improvement since this topic first came up. Sahasrahla 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The history section seems to me to be too sketchy, and needs significant expansion and a bit more gravitas. As it stands, the most important piece of local history would appear to be the "Banned In Boston" phenomenon, which is noteworthy but not, on balance, terribly important. The role of the Irish in Boston (to say nothing of other immigrant groups) is barely addressed; the long-running controversy over school desegregation in the recent past is simply ignored treated too superficially. And the last paragraph of the history section sound like the product of the local tourism bureau; it's not really an encyclopedic tone. Monicasdude 21:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a History of Boston, Massachusetts sub-article that has more details, including information concerning other immigrant groups and the Boston busing situation of the 1970s. However, I can't expand the history section without going over the 40 kB limit unless you can tell me exactly what you think is lacking in the history section. Pentawing 22:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I added in a notation about the busing situation of 1974 and major Irish figures who have a major presence in Boston politics. I also reworded the last paragraph to a previous version. Pentawing 04:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I still find the history section inadequate. There's almost no discussion of events between (roughly) 1820 and 1970, and most other historical discussion is just too sketchy. I really don't think that saying "During the early 1770s, Bostonians initiated the American Revolution" is particularly accurate, for example. I can't tell you "exactly" what to put in to fill the huge gaps in the history section, but it probably should be rewritten from scratch -- the "History of Boston" article isn't very good, as an article or as a starting point. Monicasdude 01:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can do, but you have to be specific as to why the history section is "sketchy" (what you believe is sketchy may be fine to someone else). Again, I have to note that the history section is merely a summary, that it should not contain every detail imaginable (which are covered in the sub-article). Pentawing 01:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support looks damn fine... lets feature it (front page next anniversary of the Tea Party? - Thats December 16th folks :)  ALKIVAR™ 06:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The link to 'see also Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts' is located at the bottom of the Demographics section, not the Geography section which deals with this subject. Was that intentional? I haven't read the second half of the article yet but look forward to being able to support. Adz 00:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The 'see also Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts' was placed in the demographics section instead of the geography section since the article focused on the population makeup of each neighborhood rather than the geology of the each part of the city. Pentawing 04:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Medium Object (Changed vote to support below). Some key parts & sections could do with rewriting & more flesh to them. Overall, this article just doesn't feel right to me, but the again, it's just my opinion. Especially the sports & culture & lower down sections need work. Spawn Man 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you be specific as to which sections have problems and why? Thanks. Pentawing 04:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As stated above, the sports, culture & sections that are lower down on the article page are in need of some lengthening. They have much more potential, but are still around 4 paragraphs long, & the health section only being 1 paragraph long. Other than that it is an awesome article & would gladly support it if the lower sections were given some much needed attention... Spawn Man 22:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • There are more details about culture in Culture in Boston, Massachusetts (the section in the Boston article itself is a summary of that sub-article). The same applies to the transportation section. The summaries were to address another user's concern (Nichalp) that the sections were too long and should go into sub-articles (plus as a means of keeping the article close to about 35kB as he prescribed). I'll see what I can do with health and medicine. Pentawing 22:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I do not think the page size should limit the growth of an article. Some articles have been 72KB long!!!! Spawn Man 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • comment: Then we need to come to some sort of consensus on what summary style really is. This is a problem I've had as well. I don't mind using summary style, but there needs to be some (even unwritten) understanding of exactly what a featured article's summary style should look like. It's ridiculous to me that you create one objection by satisfying someone else's objection. PacknCanes | say something! 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I expanded sections which do not have a corresponding sub-article to cover the details. Please let me know if you see something else that could be added. Pentawing 01:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes indeed I see something, could you please expand on the references section, as I know there are many other books on Boston out there. After that you will have my full support... Spawn Man 03:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I added two references that I found through Google Print. I will look for more sources when I get the chance to visit the local library this weekend. Pentawing 20:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You have far exceeded my expectations, you now have my Full SUPPORT. Thanks.... Spawn Man 23:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, article is well written and formatted, and summarises the relevant subatricles well. One tiny quibble is the see alsos at the end of sections, could these be absorbed into the text if possible?--nixie 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)