Talk:Greyhound Lines/Archives/2015

Freedom rides

Greyhound buses were used during the historically famous (or infamous) Freedom Rides of the Civil Rights Movement. Shouldn't there be a link on this site with the Wikipedia article about the Freedom Rides, inserted within the history section of the company during the 1960s? If you go to this site looking for Freedom Rides info, you won't find it here and that seems an odd omission in light of the company's important role in U.S. history. Many have seen the iconic Life Magazine photo of the burning Greyhound bus and might look here first for info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have added a paragraph describing desegregation, Freedom Rides, and the bus-burning. It is sourced partly from the sources of other articles. Needs improvement. KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty darn good, actually! Thanks! oknazevad (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I've edited it again. While Interstate Commerce (buses & trains) were a big part of how the civil rights movement used strong federal laws and an area of federal regulation to overturn local Jim Crow laws (such as segregated bus & train stations even after the buses themselves were technically desegregated), it is important to retell the story here, but with more bus company & bus passenger details. Such as: I'd like to have that paragraph end with a "so what happened next?" What where the consequences for Greyhound? Things look pretty bleak for both the bus and interracial travel groups (the mob seems to have won) What happened to Greyhound and its passengers (not just the Fed Gov't and rights activists?) over the next few years? Did they get police protection? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems likely to be the logical close of this paragraph.KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greyhound Lines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 00:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	This article is legal and is accurate in respect to spelling and grammar.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	This article is in compliance with all appropriate sections of the Wikipedia MoS.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	This article has a full list of all references in the article which follows the proper format.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The article has been adequately sourced.	Pass
(c) (original research)	This article does not appear to include any original research.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	This article covers all major aspects of the Greyhound Lines company.	Pass
(b) (focused)	This article is on the edge of being too broad and while it is not too broad yet steps should be taken to focus the article.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
This article does not appear to have a bias or any other form of non-neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
While this article is still undergoing some minor edits, it appears that there are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes and no major content swings.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are used in compliance with the law and Wikipedia policies.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images are used appropriately and include suitable captions..	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Passed.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

I'm working to repair as many references as I can, but as I told StudiesWorld on their talk page, I'm having a tough time determining which ones they were referring to in the list above. For example a link to the Greyhound Bus Museum is called #7, but Wikipedia has that listed as reference #8. It would help if the list of problems with the first few words the problem reference. --RickyCourtney (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

StudiesWorld, RickyCourtney, where does this stand now? It's been nineteen days since the above post. I do see that StudiesWorld has only edited on Wikipedia once since June 30 (a couple of days ago); does this mean we should find a new reviewer to finish this review? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I am awaiting RickyCourtney's fix. Also I used the numbering from here.

Apologies for the delay. I've been moving into a new apartment... so I've been very busy in the real world. I'll work on the fixes this week. Thank you for the numbering link StudiesWorld, that will be a big help. --RickyCourtney (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Bystander comment: Please correct the following reference, which I have removed at this time, as its URL causes the reader's browser to try to print the webpage: {{cite web|url=http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/115010102084450.xml&coll=2 |title=Cleveland.com's Printer-Friendly Page |work=Cleveland.com |accessdate=2013-09-21}} Prhartcom (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing comments:

• two of the Notable incidents and accidents are unsourced; if they're notable (and one involves the "largest loss of life" on a single Greyhound bus, which in and of itself needs a source), there should be reliable sourcing available
• the In popular culture section is inadequately sourced: half of the Films don't have sources, and the vast majority of Songs are also unsourced. If they're notable enough to include here, they're notable enough to have reliable secondary sourcing

—BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So at this point I think I have fixed as many of the references as possible, adding necessary citations and fixing broken links. In regards to the primary source citations that remain, they're compliant with Wikipedia policy as they support a fact and not the intreperation of a fact. The only section that's still yet to be fully addressed is the "In Popular Culture." I'm not familar with most of the works listed, should I find links to support the fact that the artist mentioned Greyhound in the work or does the citation need to support that that work is influential in promoting Greyhound in Popular Culture. --RickyCourtney (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@StudiesWorld: Thoughts? --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

RickyCourtney, StudiesWorld hasn't edited on Wikipedia since August 21, over five weeks ago. It may be time to try to find someone to take over the review. You might want to request just that at WT:GAN—as this is the longest-running review (approaching four months) and the oldest nomination by far (well over eight months, as compared to barely six), I hope that someone would be willing to take it on if you ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, thanks for the suggestion. This is the first article I've submitted for GA and it hasn't gone at all as expected. Before I bother someone over at GAN, could I trouble you to weigh in with your thoughts on citations for the In Popular Culture section? Thanks! --RickyCourtney (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

RickyCourtney, you'll need to have a citation for every entry included. (It's especially bad when there isn't a citation in an entry with a quoted lyric; all quotes in articles need to be cited by the end of the sentence where the quote concludes.) Also, you'll want to rethink the categories: there's a television mini-series in the Film section, and a musical in the Song section. Whether this means you need some sort of "Other" category to handle these two, or to revise the section headers to be more inclusive, I'll let you decide. Your eventual new reviewer will decide the rest. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I just noticed this at WikiProject Companies as a GA nominations and thought I'd give it a passing glance. I noticed that citation 113 is not formatted and is tagged as a broken link. The following paragraph and some of the sentences in this section are unsourced. Moving up, the "Greyhound Community Reflections Mural Program" has a lot of content cited to a press release and shouldn't have a dedicated section. The Stations section is completely unsourced, as are numerous sentences sprinkled throughout the page. I noticed the BoltBus section relies very heavily on primary sources, even though the dedicated sub-article has sources like TIME magazine cited. Moving up the article, 66 is a press release and 63 needs formatting/a working link. Citation 61 is not a good use of a primary source either - promotional. The 1945–1983 section has a lot of unsourced content.

The page looks like it's heading in the right direction, but still needs a bit of work to make sure everything has a strong source and to trim some promotionalism added with primary sources, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)