Talk:Delhi Bus Rapid Transit System

NPOV

This article does not seem to have a neutral point of view. I find that the section 'Myths about BRT corridor' to be particularly problematic. It is not Wikipedia place to take a stand on whether something is good or bad. Also that particular section seems unsourced. Can someone please find a citation and it to that? I will remove that section if a consensus cannot be reached since the claims made do not seem to have basis at all. Ankur Banerjee (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material since no citations were added. Ankur Banerjee (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are various benefits of BRT outlined in the article but none of them cite a reference.Also,the one external link is the 'official' BRTS website. This looks like a PR plug of the Delhi BRT with no counterpoint stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.220.9 (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues

The sections "introduction" and the following section are too generic for this article, and if nobody objects, I'll remove them. An informative and interesting article otherwise, keep up the gooid work. In Wikipedia:Good faith, Nankai (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-organisation

I have reorganised the article to put the existing content into a clearer and more common structure. I don't know much about the project and simply reworked what was already there to the best of my abilities. Please check my working and correct any errors I may have introduced. I suggest that it would now be worth going through the article creating proper inline citations which I will do as time allows. It would also be useful to add more recent developments to the history section, including the legal challenge. For example, this article on the BBC website as few weeks ago [1] and this one today [2]. PeterEastern (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Delhi Bus Rapid Transit System. 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/20110118062328/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/DMRC-opens-Sarita-Vihar-Badarpur-section/Article1-650172.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/DMRC-opens-Sarita-Vihar-Badarpur-section/Article1-650172.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019082626/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Delhi-bus-corridor-stays-for-common-man-s-sake/Article1-946842.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Delhi-bus-corridor-stays-for-common-man-s-sake/Article1-946842.aspx

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: 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) 11:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)