Talk:Boring, Oregon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 23:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	There are far too many unsourced sentences, especially in the history, education, and infrastructure sections. The list of notable people and list of sister cities are both missing necessary citations. Some of the links chosen are
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See comments below
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Not a GA requirement, but I would recommend ALT text for images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Putting this on hold for now. SounderBruce 00:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Lead and infobox

• I don't think "Regional" counts as the specific government of Boring

History

• "which takes its namesake from the town" should be something like "which is named after the town"
• "Boring was given its namesake after" should be "Boring is named for" or "Boring's namesake is"
• "Illinois-native" doesn't require a hyphen
• There are large gaps in the history, which gives a ton of attention to the trolley but not much else. What happened between the post-war years and 2005, which were a huge period of growth for the metro area?
• The sections on Boring's unusual name and sister cities should be split or integrated with the "In popular culture"

Economy

• What are the largest modern employers of Boring residents (including out-of-town companies)? How many commute to Portland and Gresham?
• "US west coast" should be "U.S. West Coast"; and does a guide dog training program really warrant inclusion at all?

Demographics

• Could a historic population table (with previous census entries) be added?

Law and government

• Clarify what Boring's status is...the use of the term "town" in the article is confusing and this section would be a place to explain it.
• Is Boring part of any special districts (e.g. libraries) that can be mentioned?
• Mention of Boring's representation in the state legislature and in the federal legislature would be helpful.
• Could the election data be updated for the 2016 presidential election? And include the gubernatorial elections of 2014 and 2016?

Infrastructure

• Is there any information on utilities and health care that can be added?
• Where does Route 212 go from Boring?
• "Its roads are maintained"...is Route 212 more than one road? Does ODOT maintain other roads in Boring?

In popular culture

• Mind renaming this something different, like "Name"? It has one pop culture entry (Gravity Falls) and the rest about the name.
• Source for the twinning with Bland, Australia?

Citations

• I don't think City Melt, Craig's Railroad Pages, Zip Data, Distance Between Cities, Distance-Cities, Sperling's Best Places, and a Facebook pace are reliable sources worthy of GA standards.
• More secondary sources should be used, especially when citing pop-culture entries (e.g. referencing the Vimeo video itself is not exactly kosher)
• Include links during the first mention of a reference, e.g. The Guardian, TIME, Portland Tribune, KVAL; make sure to not repeat links, e.g. The Oregonian.
• Using TripAtlas, Yellow Pages, and Trulia without an additional resource to back up claims is inappropriate.
• Properly mark subscription-required services (e.g. WSJ)
• CheckLinks is throwing up some redirected and dead links. Please make sure to fix them.

I've looked over your assessment and I may have to scrap the nomination here as there's simply not enough data to available to fill in the gaps you've pointed out here. This is especially true in terms of finding citations and statistics that aren't sourced from databases such as Sperling's and the like. Information on the number of commuters, main employers, etc. is simply not out there. It seems the town isn't big enough to warrant it unfortunately. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, Drown Soda. For now, I will close the review as a fail, but feel free to ask any questions if you wish to further improve the article and make another try for GAN. SounderBruce 04:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)