Talk:MetroHero

Did you know nomination

The following 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 BorgQueen (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that MetroHero used to let riders know whenever the Washington Metro caught on fire? Source: The GW Hatchet: "... MetroHero also scours Twitter for WMATA notifications and messages on train delays, fires and other travel slowdowns, then displays the full tweets within the app under the station in mention."
  • Reviewed: [[]]
  • Comment: QPQ not required, second DYK nom

Moved to mainspace by PlanetJuice (talk). Self-nominated at 00:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/MetroHero; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will review. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Interesting article. New enough (submitted within one day of creation), long enough (6314 characters), with inline citations, no evidence of close paraphrasing, neutrally written. QPQ is not required. Hook is compelling (made me click) and verified. It was originally sourced to a student newspaper, which is "ok" but I added another Washington Post article as an additional source. (The link should work if you log in to Wikipedia Library first, then click on it. Otherwise, just search on Wikipedia Library for "metrohero" and "fire" and it should be the first result.) Cielquiparle (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 15:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Review coming right up! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

PlanetJuice, all done, just a couple comments below. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk, thanks for picking up this review! Responses below. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (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.	DCist should be italicized throughout I only see one prose mention, but fixed —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) MetroHero was initially developed by James Pizzurro and Jennifer Pizzurro... - remove first instance of last name- "James and Jennifer Pizzurro..." Fixed —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) In particular, they have criticized Metro's reluctance... - cut "have" Fixed —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) On the dashboard, system-wide train summary data, such as the number of operating trains and headway adherence, are visible. - are visible? If I'm reading it correctly, the subject ("train summary data") is singular, so it'd be "is visible" Switched this at the last minute before the review since "data" can go either way in English, but I generally prefer singular myself anyway. Fixed this and the other use of "data" as plural. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Much of the prose under "Application" is written in present tense. This is fine for the website, but isn't the app defunct? If the app is dead, all discussion of the app should be written in past tense I'm not sure how I feel about this – this was also something I was questioning before the GAN. The article uses "application" to refer to any version of the app – the web app (in a browser, so a website, I suppose), the iOS app, or the Android app. All three versions are basically carbon copies of each other, at least as of the last time I used it several years ago (I don't think I could find a source for this, so it's not included explicitly). So the "app", in the sense used by the article, isn't dead, since there are identical web forks that are also called "MetroHero" – they're just not the original. (As far as I am aware, the native mobile apps are legitimately dead, but I can't find any source for that such that it wouldn't be OR.) I think it would be misleading and/or confusing to refer to all the application features in past tense, and then note that the app is still accessible, but I am open to ideas as to how to best approach this since it's definitely a bit confusing regardless. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Remove wl from archived Fixed —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Fair enough then, you've provided good reasoning
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No fiction, words to watch, or lists. Lead is well-written. Otherwise, no MOS violations.
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.	Citations are in a proper "References" section
	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).	I question Greater Greater Washington- what makes this site reliable? Fair, although it is used as a source about its own coverage, not a factual statement about the app. I removed that statement for now because the other sources I can find right now either have the same publisher as DCist or discuss Metrobus data, which might really be ARIES data instead of MetroHero. I will see if I can readd this at some point in the future after I dig a little deeper. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Sources are mostly local newspapers or news channels- one Tweet is cited to the WMATA appropriately- all reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Quick spotcheck, choosing at random; AGF on locked sources (particularly Washington Post for me, it seems I've used up my monthly free articles!): 2b: The first sentence is supported, but I don't see anything in the article supporting "The development of the app was not endorsed by WMATA..." This is my mistake. My draft document has this statement being supported by the first WaPo ref ("Unlike other systems, Metro does not advertise third-party apps or have any preferred clients..."), so I probably accidentally mixed something up when rewriting in wikitext. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) AGF on 2b now. 2e: good 3: I don't see anything in the article supporting "the app's developers led or participated in other initiatives related to transit in the Greater Washington area." Sorry if this was unclear; this specific sentence was meant to serve as an introduction to and provide context for the several initiatives described in the rest of the paragraph, not to be supported by any one of the sources in this paragraph. I could probably go either way about including or removing this sentence. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) I now see- I think it'd be best to put a citation somewhere, just to clear things up, but it's fine for now. 3 is good. 4f and 5c: I don't see anything in either that supports the costs and time claim The DCist source (3) states, "The project takes a lot of time and money to keep going, so they decided to end the app." —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) My bad- 4f and 5c are good. 5h: good 6: good 9: good A number of unsupported claims are present. Spotchecks have been corrected- no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the history, design, functions, shutdown, and reception of the app- all good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
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.	Images are properly PD/Gnu license tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.