This 2006 FA promotion has issues with criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 3.
Criterion 1a issues:
random example: "BEST also earns revenues by way of advertisements on its buses and bus-stops, and through rent from offices on owned properties" -> "BEST also earns revenue through advertisements on its buses and bus-stops, and by renting out offices in its buildings"
Persistent use of "till"
mixture of British and American English
Criterion 1b issues:
The "culture and awards" section is pure fluffery
Nothing on BEST's safety record?
Info on governance? Board of directors? How does the government exert control?
Are the bus services coordinated with trains so that passengers can transfer efficiently?
Criterion 1c issues: Almost all sources are from BEST, giving me the feeling that this reads like an advertisement. In addition, there are a number of paragraphs without citations.
Criterion 3 issues: Questionable PD claims for the images in the "History" section. There's no evidence that these images were published 60 years ago.
Delist. The concerns listed above are valid, and with only three edits in the past month, there is no sign of them being addressed during the period of this review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist. Pity that people put all that work into a nomination and then leave it to the wolves. Tony(talk) 11:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)