Talk:M60 (New York City bus)

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:M60 SBS BRT RDT.

M60 (New York City bus) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 15, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 6, 2018.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the M60 and Q70 bus routes in New York City were upgraded because LaGuardia Airport had no other rapid transit options?

New York City: Public Transportation Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

Buses: New York Low‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M60 (New York City bus). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:M60 (New York City bus)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~On hold for 7 days (starting January 14/18)~~ Pass!

Overall looks really good. Just a couple of minor things:

This sentence doesn't really flow: "Originally operating out of the Mother Clara Hale Depot, then the Manhattanville Depot, and finally the 126th Street Depot, all located in Upper Manhattan, since January 2015 the M60 operates out of the Michael J. Quill Depot in Midtown." Perhaps splitting into two sentences would help.

Done

For the table listing all the stops, I think it would help if the notes at the bottom turn into footnotes with links to the appropriate places. (Take a look at the Notes section in this article.

Reference #2 needs to be formatted properly with as much info as possible (title, access date, etc).

Done

Ideally, reference #5 should be replaced with something better than Google Maps. This is really just my opinion and is fine to leave in the article; but I think having an article or something that explicitly states the route distance would be nice.

References dates and access dates should follow the same date format. Some use YYYY-MM-DD while others use "Month Day, Year".

Done

Just a note for future reference. If the information stated in the lead is repeated elsewhere in the article, it is not required to include references in the lead (this just helps reduce the number of reference links). Again, this is just a note for future reference.

--Dom497 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: Thank you for reviewing these article. I will fix these soon, including the WP:CITELEAD stuff. epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: Thanks for addressing some of the issues. I also just noticed I missed one minor detail. Ref 6 provides more recent data than 2014.--Dom497 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: If nothing can be found regarding a replacement for the Google Maps source, just send me a ping and I will pass this nomination. I trust that you will attempt find a replacement under good-faith.--Dom497 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497:

Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Passing!--Dom497 (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]