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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Sources are mostly local newspapers or news channels- one Tweet is cited to the WMATA appropriately- all reliable.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 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.
