Talk:Citi Bike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCiti Bike 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
DateProcessResult
June 15, 2012Articles for deletionKept
June 30, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 21, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that New York City's Citi Bike is the largest bicycle-sharing system in the United States?
Current status: Good article

3 phases, eventually 100,000+ bikes?[edit]

I wanted to add an image I discovered on the Transportation Politic. CitiBike hopes to eventually serve 4 boroughs with 89,500 bikes. These are planned rollouts but could change (likely grow) as they have in other cities. Now hurricane Sandy did split phase 1 in half, but I strongly believe this goal will be met or exceeded considering current demand.

http://thetransportpolitic.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/nyc-bikes.png

It's a pleasant and informative map. Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia:Image use policy, we can't use it without evidence that the owner has released enough rights. Probably the owner is Alta. Some corporate owners see the benefit of releasing some of their intellectual property with a compatible free-use licence; others prefer to reserve all rights or only relase enough rights to allow certain commercial media to use copyright materials. Often in the past week or two when I turn a corner in Manhattan or Brooklyn I see a new Citibike station. When Wikipedians find them, their locations are not secret and for those we can expect to avoid a licencing problem, but as for future coverage areas we have to rely on released information. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map was provided by the NYC DCP in this publication (Public domain?):

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/transportation/bike_share_complete.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.244.227 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The box on the right side of the page should include cumulative numbers of annual members, which as of July 8, 2013 is over 55,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamTech87 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, alas, NYC documents are not automatically Public Domain. One problem with a counter in the WP:INFOBOX is, we have no mechanism to update it automatically. Perhaps we can provide a WP:EL to a Web page that frequently updates such numbers, such as the operator's. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effects sections[edit]

I just wanted to say that I think it's ridiculous that the section "Effects" lists only one thing - a claim that Citibike has hurt bike rentals, which is backed up by a single article. First of all, this is potentially misleading - I've seen an article about how Citibike is actually helping bike shops, by A) Making the city safer for bikes (including more bike routes), thereby making people more inclined to buy bikes, B) getting people to realize how useful bikes are and then buy one. Second of all, even if this is an effect, it's certainly not a very important one - it's misleading for that to be the only effect. There are so many effects - where to start? Either there should be a far more comprehensive list of effects or there should be none at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.231.184 (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figure a few those effects for which we have sources should be included. If reliable news reports can only be found for one kind, then yes the paragraph will not look well balanced but that isn't a reason to delete. Do any reports in newspapers, television stations etc discuss several of those "so many effects" or are all other reports limited to blogs, speculations on what is likely to happen, and other things not useful to the article? Jim.henderson (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Citi Bike. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Citi Bike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 12:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


1a - The prose is mostly clear and well-written. Only one comment: "Walder said the compant would appoint a VP" - be careful about WP:CRYSTAL, generally even if it is published in WP:RS, we avoid repeating speculation/rumours about things that have not yet happened.

1b - currently the lede appears to be written more in news style then encylcopedic style (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Comparison_to_the_news-style_lead), please consider expanding it.

2b- Is Streetsblog something we would consider WP:RS? Seraphim System (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2d - this seems to be verbatim from the source "an increased sponsorship commitment from Citi of up to $70.5 million extended through 2024, and a $15 million increase in the credit facility from the Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group" - I'm not sure this could be called COPYVIO, since it is not creative language and does not express any original ideas, but is only a recitation of facts — but please consider adding quotation marks and attribution to this statement anyway. Seraphim System (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Seraphim System: Thank you for reviewing this article as well. I have cleaned up the lead per 1b. For 2b, I think Streetsblog is only good for the opinion, so I will try to find other RS. epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1a: Since the VP was appointed (but the only source was Streetsblog) so I paraphrased to reflect that it was the plan at the time to appoint a VP.
    • 1b:  Done Expanded lead.
    • 2b: i plan to find alternate sources soon.
    • 2d:  Done paraphrased. epicgenius (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seraphim System: I found some alternative sources for Streetsblog. It looks like it does fit RS, since it's not strictly a blog (It is operated by OpenPlans, a transportation non-profit). I will keep looking for more sources, but for now Streetsblog seems to be a consistent source for information on Citi Bike expansions, and it doesn't seem to be blatantly POV or promotional. epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think Streetsblog meets the requirement for WP:RS — I have not been able to find a single secondary source use, which is one way that we usually evaluate WP:RS. Otherwise, I think the lede is much better and it is ready to go. I would be glad to re-review if you ping me once you've found alternate sourcing. Seraphim System (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Seraphim System: I've removed Streetsblog as a RS. It is only used to reference Streetsblog commentary now in the "Complaints" section as well as another commentary regarding stall spacing. It's no longer used to source anything that can be claimed as fact, and this should solve the RS issue. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've changed to pass, I don't think it needs to go through a full renomination, I don't think this should be a problem since Legobot doesn't add to the GA list, but if I've made a mistake here we can just do a second a review. Seraphim System (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Citi Bike. 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: 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) 08:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

update needed[edit]

I'm not in a good position to make the fixes, but the "Company" paragraph seems out-of-date. It refers to "Alta" which is an obsolete name. Danchall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Citi Bike. 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: 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) 06:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citi_Bike&oldid=1200924708"