Talk:Q79 (New York City bus)

Q79 (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.
Review: April 27, 2020. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Q79 (New York City bus) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that after New York City's Q79 bus was discontinued due to low ridership, a private car service was provided, which was later also discontinued for the same reason?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Q79 (New York City bus).

Wikipedia

New York City 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.

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).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Q79 (New York City bus)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead is definitely lacking here. I'd look for a three or fourfold expansion given the size of the article. You should certainly include when it opened and what ran on it, etc.
"Little Neck Long Island Rail Road station" sea of blue and a confusing one at that.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Little Neck – Little Neck" confusing!!
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" the Q79 has had" just "had" no has.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" which is why the route was almost discontinued in the 1990s, and was discontinued in 2010" bit clunky, repetitive.
- @The Rambling Man: Do you have any suggestions on how to rewrite it?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not convinced it really needs to even be in this section as you seem to cover it again in the subsequent "Service cuts and discontinuation" section... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed. Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"a largely suburban and low density areas" mix of singular and plural here.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add (LIRR) after the first expanded version.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" along Little Neck Parkway" quick repeated.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"At the public hearing... repetitive with public hearing and route repeated in the same sentence.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" Hazeltine Electronics Corporation" was this not a "traffic generator"?
- It was not mentioned in the document from 1996, so presumably it was either closed, or the demand from the plant did not end up resulting in increased ridership.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"on June 4, 1950 against" comma after 1950.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"couldn't run " avoid contractions.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the MTA announced" what's MTA and link it first time.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" $272 million dollar " remove dollar.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"opposition from the village of Floral Park." no reference for all this.
- Ha. I must have been tired and did not bother to put the citation in at one point. Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" Port Washington Branch " overlinked.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UniTicket - what's this?
" Village of Floral Park" why is Village capitalised here (and the instance after).
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" the Floral Park LIRR " overlinked.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"impact.." one too many periods.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"one of 20" one of twenty.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"B-84 and B-85" why not "B-84, B-85"?
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 has spaced hyphen, needs to be en-dash.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 13 needs fixing.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ensure all refs have publication or accessdates or both, be consistent.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noted the closure date isn't mentioned in the prose, other than in the lead.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, so it's on hold. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613 this is looking good but the lead still needs expansion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613 just checking you saw, we need an expansion of the lead, and then this is done. Cheers, The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I just expanded the lead.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly good, I made a couple of minor tweaks but I'm happy to promote now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for being patient and for the good review! I see someone else says jolly good! Stay safe and well.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and likewise. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that after the Q79 bus was discontinued due to low ridership, a private car service was provided and also discontinued because of low ridership? Source: PDF pp. 114-115
- ALT1:~~... that a proposal to save New York City's Q79 bus in 1995 was stymied due to opposition from a neighboring village?~~ Source: NY Times 1995

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hege Lanes Steinlund

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 15:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

GA icon received within 7 days of nomination. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. The first hook is very hooky; I have struck the second hook as being much less interesting. ALT0 hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. ALT0 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]