Talk:M60 (New York City bus)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105171035/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120925/upper-west-side/m60-bus-layover-spot-moves-quiet-west-end-ave to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120925/upper-west-side/m60-bus-layover-spot-moves-quiet-west-end-ave
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924092424/http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class.pdf to http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. 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)

• @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)

@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)

 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)

@Dom497:  Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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