Talk:Lothian Buses/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 11:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. I have read the article, and think it is close to good article standard. Initial impressions are that the lead is a little short for the length of the article, there are a number of bare urls used as refs which need expanding, several significant sections with no references, and a few issues with grammar. I will work through the article, leaving the lead till last, and making comments as I go. Please respond with what has been fixed below the comments. I am not in favour of striking out the comments as they are addressed, as it makes the review much harder to read at a later date, and it is an important record of why GA status was awarded. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links. There are around 40 dead links. Rather than list them all, please use the external links option on the tool box. All the red ones need resolving, and some of those with a 3xx code may also need looking at.

Thanks for the review Bob, I'm working on your suggestions now. I'll post when they are completed. Rcsprinter (talk to me) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 11:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I will also have a look over this when I've more time, see how I can help with the GA. FYI I have also posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses and Wikipedia:WikiProject Edinburgh to make them aware of this review, maybe some of them can also help out :)--5 albert square (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History. The first paragraph is unreferenced. Done

The jump from tramway abandonment in 1956 to strikes in 2005 does not seem obvious. Is there any info on how the company avoided deregulation, or anything else that happened post-1956? Done
Strikes. Placing this section immediately below history seems to give a single event in 2005 too much prominence. How about moving it below Awards, so that history flows into what the company has achieved, and Strikes are mentioned as a blip in that progress? Done
Awards. The 32 percent growth and £100 million investment needs a ref. Done

Fares. Most of this section is unreferenced (but otherwise ok). Done

"Lothian operates a flat-fare system, with a daytime adult singles for any journey;" doesn't quite make sense. Done

Daytime network. All of this section is unreferenced (but otherwise ok). Done
Night buses.

Edinburgh Dungeon needs a few words of introduction, so that readers keep reading, rather than following the link. Done
The pdf link to the leaflet needs to be converted to a proper reference. Done ref replaced.
I am not terribly convinced by the Lat/Long information for the garages and works. Have you thought of incorporating it into a points of interest table, using {PoIGB}, so that the reader is not distracted by it, but can access it if desired? At the very least, a {kml} template would at least allow readers to see all the points on a map at the same time, rather than one at a time. If you go for the POI table, you could also include Shrub Hill.

Done I have added a {kml} template, and adjusted the table a little. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the site was sold ... to BL Developments to develop the site into flats and houses" doesn't read well. Try rewording. Done Reworded.
Paragraphs 3 to 6 are unreferenced. Done only 3 and 4 are unreferenced now, and I don't know if they can be referenced or how important it is to reference them. The section as a whole seems to be well referenced. Will work on combining them as suggested below.
Suggest it would flow better is paras 1+2, 3+4 and 5+6 were combined, as they are rather short, although 1+2+3, 4 and 5+6 could also work. Done
Most of para 5 is one huge run-on sentence, with poor grammer. It needs several semicolons or splitting into at least three sentences. It might be easier to try rewriting it. Done

Tram network

"forthcoming Edinburgh tram network" needs a little expansion. Is it imminent, short-term future, mid-term future, or what? So "... expected to be completed in 2xxx ..." or somesuch to give a bit of context. Done
"As a consequence of the trams," Suggest "As a consequence of the trams being introduced," or somesuch. Done

Fleet

First paragraph is unreferenced. Done
There are articles on Minibus and Midibus which should be linked, for those unfamiliar with the distinction. Done
There is also an article on Low-floor bus, which should also be linked. Done

Current vehicles

"28 Dennis Trident 2 had been converted to open-top (all tour operations)." Suggest wikilink open top bus, and (all tour operations) needs expanding to explain what you mean. Done
There is an article on National Concessionary Travel Scheme, but sadly it is Anglo-centric, as is Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007, so neither is suitable for linking. It could do with a little bit of background if the details are available.

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrators. Most of this section is unreferenced. Done by removing the section.

"a Scania ... was purchased for use on the X48 Park & Ride</ref> for use on a special roster on the X48." Something has gone wrong with formatting here.
"MAN" should be wikilinked to MAN_SE, so we know which bit is the manufacturers name.

Preserved vehicles. This section is unreferenced. Done

Main fleet liveries. The first two paragraphs are unreferenced. Done

"Low floor vehicles have also seen route branding come to be increasingly used by Lothian." doesn't read well. Suggest "Route branding has been increasingly used by Lothian since the introduction of low floor vehicles" or somesuch. Done
"This led to service 5 being re-branded as 'Morningside Maisie' after the fictional kitten created by Aileen Paterson." I cannot follow why this should be, so a little more explanation would be helpful. Done by removing sentence.

Eco branding

"The buses used on their route 36 have/are being repainted" Doesn't read well. Suggest "The buses used on route 36 are gradually being repainted" or somesuch. Done

Penicuik City Link

"One of the "Penicuik City Link" buses (bus 801) has recently been repainted into madder and white" Suggest "One of these buses..." to avoid three repetitions of "Penicuik City Link", and "recently" will soon date, so "in 2012", "by 2011" or whatever. Done

Playing cards theme

Final three paragraphs are unreferenced. Done

Connect branding. The second half is unreferenced. Done
Zoom to the Zoo" advertising

"wearing animal-themed advertising designs" Wearing should be carrying, or somesuch. Done
"Five variations exist, on two vehicles each::" Double colon should be single. Done

Tourism

History of tour operations
"Later, Atlanteans were employed in this same livery" The article seems to drop into bus enthusiast mode here. Presumably "Atlanteans" are Leyland Atlantean buses, for which there is an article. It should be wikilinked. Similarly, Olympians ought to be Leyland Olympians. Done
"Guide Friday" is introduced without context, and is a red link. It needs explanation. Presumably it is another bus company? Done
I am not convinced that buses "wear" a livery. Needs fixing in two cases. Done
Tours in Oxford and Cambridge. If these are the university cities in England, they need linking, and if they are not, they need linking or explanation, depending on what is available. Done

Edinburgh Bus Tours

"All other tours use Dennis Trident 2 with Plaxton President bodies." Suggest "... Dennis Trident 2 buses with ..." Done
"For the City Sightseeing is red, Edinburgh Tours is white and green, while Majestic Tours is orange and blue." doesn't quite make sense. Suggest "For the City Sightseeing tours, the livery is red, etc ..." or somesuch. Done

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forth Tours

"As of 2007 Mac Tours has operated a bus for Forth Tours". Needs clarifying. Is that "since 2007" or "during 2007" or what? Done
"The bus used is Dennis Trident Plaxton President 651 (XIL1484)" Is 651 the model of the bus or the number. If the first, then "the bus used is a Dennis ...". If the latter, then I suggest "... President No. 651...". Done reworded.
"It carries a special yellow blue and green forth tours livery". Needs a comma after yellow, and "Forth Tours", since it is a company name.
"The bus used up until the end of the 2011 season was 433 (P433 KSX), it carried a special yellow and blue livery" Suggest "up" in not needed, "No. 433" and change "it carried" to "which carried", so it reads correctly. Done Sentence deleted.
"Bus 433 has a previous nautical connection, having previously been used". Suggest either previous or previously could be removed or reworded, to read better.

Done, however, having deleted the sentence for the previous comment, Bus 433 is without context. Suggest "Bus 433, which was used on the Forth Tours service until 2011, has a nautical connection..."

Services

Airlink 100
"tickets can be bought online (must be printed)". Needs expansion and removal of brackets. Done Sentence removed.
another bus wearing a livery, and another Olympian, which needs a Leyland. Done
Not quite sure about this. Volvos replaced the previous Scanias at the start of the paragraph, but the previous buses were Leylands at the end of the paragraph. Needs to be clearer. Done

Driver training Done Section removed.

Most of this section is unreferenced.
"The fleet wears an allover yellow livery" Suggest "The fleet carries an all-over yellow livery"
Grammer of second paragraph is poor. Close association of drawn/withdrawn, recent/recently/recent, abbreviations not introduced - should PCV be PSV? - and ABS, "in to a mobile", etc. Try reworking, expanding and possibly wikilinking the abbreviations.
"Lothian policy dictates drivers are liable" should be "dictates that drivers"
The citation needed tag needs resolving.
VOSA needs expanding and wikilinking here, on first occurrence, rather than in next para.

Vehicle tracking

"It operates by tracking the movements of buses, computers then relay ..." Comma should be semicolon, full stop with capital afterwards, or a conjunction added. Done
The citation needed tag needs resolving. Done
The final sentence is a bit awkward, particularly the last phrase. Try reworking it. Done

References

I have these to check, but will leave them for a bit until some of the issues have been fixed. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y I have now made many changes and improvements to the article whilst adding more citations. I would now like some more reviewing to be done and a clearer result. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to mark those items which appear to have been done, though I would normally expect the nominater to mark which ones they thought had been done. I was sad to see that in some cases, whole sections have been deleted as a way of resolving issues. Generally, the idea of a review is to improve the article, rather than chop bits out of it. This page forms a record of what you have done, so it would have been good if you had added a note below the comments on a deleted section to explain why you thought that was the best course of action. Anyway, good work so far, though there is still some more to do, including a number of unreferenced sections. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed those sections because they are either unsourced and/or not very relevant. Also, I hadn't been marking specific parts as done because you said about striking at the top of this review, but if this is the way you want to do it that's fine. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By striking out, I meant the use of the strikeout markup, (~~like this~~), which some editors use, but I think it makes things difficult to read. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through and made considerable heavy editing. There are one or two things I couldn't get to, but for all practical purposes, I think all of the concerns have been addressed at this point. This is a fine article here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through the review and marked those items that have not been addressed yet with a N nay template, so that they are easier to see. Now that the article is much more comprehensively referenced, I will be checking that the refs are used appropriately. I would also draw your attention to the initial comment of the length of the lead, which is too short for the size of the article. It needs to introduce and summarise the article to meet the requirement for an adequate lead. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 does not appear to contain any relevant info. I get a search page with Lothian Regional Transport, but no results.

Ref replaced.

Ref 4 is not a reliable source. It is a direct copy of the Wikipedia article.

Ref replaced.

Ref 9 shows a generic bus awards page. It needs the url updating to link to the 2007 results.

Ref updated.

Ref 10 does not appear to support either 32% increase or £100 million.

Ref removed. Needs citing.

Ref 16 is still a dead link.

Ref replaced.

Ref 23 (HUKD) appears to be a blog, and so is not a Reliable source.

Ref replaced.

Ref 30 appears to be a blog, so is not a reliable source.

Ref replaced.

Ref 31 (Trams for Edinburgh) links to a generic front page. It needs to link to something more specific.

Ref replaced.

Ref 33 does not appear to contain any relevant info, as it is about women inspectors and bus shelters.

Ref removed, along with sentence.

Ref 41 goes to a generic page with no relevant info (and is extremely difficult to get back from, because of pop-ups).

Ref replaced.

Ref 42 (Triposo) is another wikipedia copy site, so cannot be used to support anything.

Ref replaced.

Ref 43 appears to be a blog, so is not a reliable source.

It is reliable.

Ref 47 redirects to a page-not-found.

Ref removed.

Ref 49 does not appear to contain any relevant info.

Ref updated.

Refs now checked. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final summary

I think we are almost there. I have updated the url for ref 63, which was still a dead link, and made a couple of tweaks to grammer. There are just two items outstanding.

Ref 33 is a bare url, pointing to a 55-page pdf. It needs properly formatting, with page numbers. Done I also fixed ref 34 which had similar problems.
Ref 32 is a bit tenuous, as it is a list of questions sent to Glasgow bus operators. I found a tiny bit about Lothian, but nothing that was not already covered by other refs. Done Replaced with an entirely different reference.

If someone can address these, then I can tick off the "factually accurate" section and will pass the article. Well done for all the hard work that has been put in to get it this far. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See comments above
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See comments above
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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:

I am happy that all the issues raised have now been addressed, and am pleased to award the article Good Article status. Thanks to those who contributed to make it happen. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I hope to bring this to good article status. I--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 12:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC) will probably pick up work on Jan 2nd. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 12:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Returned as promised. I think all issues have been addressed. Hope to see this become a GA :) —Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.