Talk:Union Turnpike express buses/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 00:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking good. Some comments below. AIRcorn (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Union Turnpike express routes begin at three different termini in Northeast Queens, running via three corridors: the QM6 and QM36; the QM5, QM8, and QM35; and QM1, QM7, and QM31. The routes also split into three corridors in Manhattan: the QM1, QM5, and QM6 via Sixth Avenue in Midtown; the QM31, QM35, and QM36 via Third Avenue in Midtown; and the QM7 and QM8 to the Financial District in Downtown Manhattan. Is there a less confusing way to explain this? Maybe a map or something to follow. I know there is a detailed one in the infobox, but maybe a simple one that shows the eight routes and where they split. Something that matches the text
 * I tried rewording the lead. There is not only a map in the infobox, but another on the top right corner of the page. It would be pretty hard to make a simple map but I can try. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I realise this is not easy so it is not a requirement. I followed the overview in the lead quite well so something along those lines might be better. AIRcorn (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually that whole opening paragraph is a bit convoluted, especially for someone not familiar with New York. Maybe a simple explanation of the general route and then individually talking about the individual ones instead of combining them.
 * Okay I see you have basically done this with the next section. I am not sure what the solution is. A simple diagram may help or maybe you can think of some better wording. I think the double use of three corridors and the overuse of the QM#'s just made things harder to follow. With the fuller explanation below the more general you keep the opening the better.
 * I have made this edit. Basically adding a broader introduction with the bus numbers, splitting the corridors so it follows the route more logically and removing the QMs from the queens end. I left the corridor descriptions at the Manhattan end as it worked for me there, if you want the bus corridors for the Queens end I would suggest doing them like that. Please edit, revert or fix this if needed. It just made more sense to me. Hopefully I haven't introduced any inaccuracies. Also is Bus corridor this redirect useful for corridoors. I wasn't sure from looking at it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think your edit is fine. In the first paragraph of the route description, I'm not sure if we should also remove the specific bus routes that run to each Manhattan terminal. epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is the Q46 under see also?
 * I think it's because the Q46 is the local bus running on Union Turnpike. epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Thanks for responding to the GA. I came back from New Haven yesterday afternoon.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Is it just the one local bus then. AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the only one. I have fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not going to judge the infobox too much as I imagine it is pretty standard on these articles. It is not obvious to me what the eight links at the bottom (the ones with the arrows) are for?
 * Numerically, these are the previous- and next-numbered routes in the bus system. epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It won't impact this GA if this is the standard format, but I would suggest as an outside opinion it might be worth your wikiproject giving this section of the infobox a header. AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried looking but this is a problem in Infobox bus route. There doesn't seem to be parameters that would give this section a header. epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm that File:MTA NYC logo.svg is able to be used. According to the page it may be protected by trademark in some areas.
 * The file description also says "This image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text," and thus there are no copyrightable objects. I think it may be usable in this case. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Images are not my specialty, but the This work includes material that may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions. If you want to use it, you have to ensure that you have the legal right to do so and that you do not infringe any trademark rights gives me some pause. It is used on quite a few articles so I am willing to give it a pass, but it would set my mind at ease if it could be shown that it is usable. AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Did some more research at it appears the key thing is Threshold of originality. Looking at the examples on that page it doesn't look like this meets that. This was interesting. All above my pay grade, but my overall feeling is that we are fine, so will go with it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Referencing looks fine
 * No copyright concerns
 * No deadlinks
 * If someone could just comment on my recent edit at the article I think we are done here. AIRcorn (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Thanks for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Will pass this. Sorry it took so long for you to get a review. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)