Talk:Lothian Buses/Archive 1

Archive 1

Christmas Day services

I've removed the Christmas Day services. While the normal services are probably relevant enough, special services that will run for just one day are far too transient to be encyclopaedic - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Scott Wilson 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Single-door buses

The article says that Lothian Buses now buy only single-door vehicles ‘for safety reasons’; what safety reasons are these? David Arthur 18:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's not so much safety as not being sued - people were apparently making compensation claims alleging that drivers shut the exit doors on them. There was also talk of people sneaking on the exit doors, and hence dodging the fare. I'll try and dig up the original article I read this in - it was from The Scotsman Online, if I remember correctly - and try to incorporate some of it into the article. --Scott Wilson 21:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go - compensation culture and fare-dodging neds. --Scott Wilson 21:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

several of these buses that still have exit doors have video monitors showing the exit door to the driver from the viewpoint opposite it, so the driver has a pretty good idea of the situation before he closes it

Brittania Express X50 references

I'm trying to cite the sentence about the X50 livery in the Forth Tours section, but the only source I have is images in a photobucket account under the name Lujille85>433 - 502 - New colours for Lothian (photos 3 and 4). If anyone knows how to link these images without spambot going mental, or has alternative image refernces, please add them 77.97.86.12 16:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the bot reverts links to Photobucket because people try to use it to display images inline (which, of course, doesn't work). Since this isn't remotely what we were trying to do, I've reverted it, and it should let the page stand since I'm neither unregistered or newly-registered. I'll report this, though - there must be a more elegant way of preventing folk displaying Photobucket images inline. --Scott Wilson 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Edinburgh Shuttle

This section of the article has appeared and disappeared several times. What is the dispute about it? David Arthur 22:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

dont know why it keeps being removed. the shuttle is controversial but is still in operation by lothian and merits being in this article. Brydo16 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea, the person only ever edits this article, never gives a reason, and has been advised about unconstructive edits. From some initial edits to it by them, I'm guessing it's a disgruntled taxi driver (they aren't happy about it), accordingly I added relevant referenced info to the section about the controversy to maintain balance. Since then they have switched to wholesale removal. I'm guessing they don't know how wikipedia works and thinks it won't get noticed.MickMacNee 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Preserved Vehicles Table readability

I've trimmed some details from this table (see here:[1]), not because they don't belong there, but because they affect the readability of the table, i.e. to have all information in single lines. There is a way I believe to have this information as footnotes, but I haven't figured out how to do this if anyone else knows how. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On-street ticket machines in Central Edinburgh

Should the article mention these? Samantha of Cardyke (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction of the "Wayfarer 200" machines

Should we include this in the article? --5 albert square (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Split Proposal

According to the tag at the top of the page, this article is too long. A major reason for this is the space given to information about the company's routes, their branding and history. There is no problem including this, but I feel it would be better off in its own page rather than dominating this one. I suggest that this content is moved to List of Lothian Buses routes. The current page could summarise important information and have a prominent link to the new one. Any thoughts? Alzarian16 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup I'm all for that. We could still have a little paragraph about the route giving a brief description and then link to the other article? --5 albert square (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes; you can get an idea of what I have in mind by looking at Wilts & Dorset and List of Wilts & Dorset bus routes, where I and a couple of others performed a similar procedure on an overly long article. Notable brandings can be mentioned on the operator page and discussed in more detail on the route list page, while standard routes (in this article they're in a Wikitable, but that doesn't affect the basic idea) appear only on the route list. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that sounds a good idea to me. I like the look of Wilt & Dorset's buses by the way, very colourful :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for shortening the article, but this kind of edit [2] is not an improvement in the slightest imo, all of that info is highly relevant to a 'preserved vehicles' section, and the replacement summary says pretty much nothing. I suggest spinning out List of Lothian Buses routes and List of Lothian Buses vehicles (current and preserved), as a better way of both shortening the article without loss of valid info. And as an aside, and this is not regarding Alzarian's change, but it is supremely depressing to see people editing the article as if its only function is to reflect the current status, I haven't looked at it in a while, but reading it now, you would never know for example that the company had operated a shuttle taxibus operation. MickMacNee (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually forgotten about the taxibus Mick. I've looked just now to find some references to support this but can't find any. Do you have any? --5 albert square (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You make some valid points there. I felt the list of preserved vehicles was far too detailed for this article, but splitting the vehicles into their own article could really work. The taxibus is certainly worth including if we can find some references to back it up. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas. I think an article for routes and an article for vehicles is the best option. The Taxibus is definitely worth mentioning. If no one can find refs then I'll try and dig out and old Buses magazine. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The other problem with the Preserved Vehicles section, which I forgot to mention, is the number of duplicate references for the same piece of information. We don't really need six references to say that one bus is preserved, especially when five of them link to Fotopic images. Can anyone think of a reason to keep them all, or would it be better to remove some of them? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on the support for List of Lothian Buses routes I've now created that article. Given the unpopularity of my change to the Preserved Vehicles section, I'm probably not the best qualified to create List of Lothian Buses vehicles so I'll leave that to someone else. Any feedback on the route list article would be welcome. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to search for references for the taxibus and I'm finding nothing. I must admit though I've not seen the taxibus around for some time now. Do they still run this service? --5 albert square (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they withdrew it as unprofitable about a year ago, although I can't find anything to back that up either. Strangely enough, the article already includes an external link supposedly to the 'Edinburgh Shuttle Website', presumably a hangover from when the topic was covered in the article. It now links only to the Airlink site. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Further info: I found this site which appears to be a leftover from when the service still ran. Clicking the 'Enter' link takes you to a very basic page on Lothian's night buses of all things! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Page Split Proposal 2

What do people reckon to the list of preserved vehicles being moved to a separate article, say List of Lothian Buses Preserved Vehicles? I thought this might be a good idea to try and shorten the article even further --5 albert square (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Second that Brydo16 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's too narrow in scope. A better article would be Vehicles of Lothian Buses, detailing the current fleet, the history of the fleet, and listing preserved vehicles. It should also probably deal with the issue of current and former liveries in detail too, with both fleet and livery becoming summary sections here. I would also point out that much of the content of List of Lothian Buses routes is not about 'routes', but 'services', and has quite a lot of prose and not a lot of table, and so it should probably be renamed to Services of Lothian Buses to stand as a more sensible partner to Vehicles of.... MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And the most obvious way of splitting this article up has not yet even been mentioned - History of Lothian Buses. At least with that article it might stop IPs randomly deleting content presumably as its no longer current. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the history idea, and I can see the benifits of the renaming you suggest. However, current fleet information is probably better dealt with on the main page, so I would support the Preserved-only option there. Alzarian16 (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll look to do this at some point over the weekend, that way we should at least be able to remove the tag that says it's too long to read. I might also see if the article can get a quick copy edit at some stage to tidy it up --5 albert square (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to give it a copyedit, but, having read this, I'd be inclined to wait til you guys have sorted out where everything goes. It's much easier to copyedit a stable article! I actually think Mick makes a good case- a history article would be useful- you can have a few paragraphs of it here and then direct readers to the split article and "services of..." and "vehicles of.." also makes sense- it keeps the titles consistent at least. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that HJ :)

By the way I've put my thinking cap on this evening and have come up with some more suggestions for improving the page. Here's what I suggest:

The section about the trams is "merged" with Edinburgh Trams. A brief description can be left on Lothian Buses page but I'd say most of what is mentioned in that section is more relevant to Edinburgh Trams than Lothian Buses. We could keep the first paragraph as an introduction, remove the second and then move the third over to the Edinburgh Trams page.

A new article is started called History of Lothian Buses. This article could incorporate the following sections of the current article:

• Company History
• Fleet History
• (Part of) "Main fleet liveries and Branding" (the sections that mention about the previous branding of madder and cream)
• History of Tour operations

The Forth Tours section should really be moved from the Contract Services section to the Tourism section I think.

The awards that the company has won could be made into a table and held on a seperate page called List of Lothian Buses Awards with only a very brief description of the awards staying on the main page.

What does everyone reckon to these ideas? --5 albert square (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say you definitely need a history article, but I wouldn't split the awards off- a list of awards won by a bus company isn't really notable and it's too narrow in its focus. Merging the trams stuff with a tram article seems a sensible idea. I'm still inclined to favour Mick's suggestion of splitting off into Services of Lothian Buses and Vehicles of Lothian Buses as well as History of Lothian Buses. It also helps to keep the titles consistent- for example, all of those end in "...of Lothian Buses". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I'd say Services of Lothian Buses was more or less already covered at List of Lothian Buses routes unless I'm completely misunderstanding --5 albert square (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to move it, but only if it would bring it into line with the other 2. Since they don't exist (yet) you;re probably best waiting til they do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We should probably move the page as it isn't really a list (I hadn't thought of that when I created it, so credit goes to Mick). However, I would favour Operations of Lothian Buses instead of services as this better describes the basis of the page. Vehicles of Lothian Buses would be difficult to create - much of the Current Fleet subsection is about things other than the vehicles, and vehicle information is also in a number of other locations including the Tourism section. History of Lothian Buses is an excellent idea which should be done at the first opportunity. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, I'll get cracking on with that over the next day or so :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've done quite a bit of work on the article tonight. I've created History of Lothian Buses and moved a chunk of the article over to there. I've also moved List of Lothian Buses routes to Services of Lothian Buses, moved part of the section on the trams to Edinburgh Trams and moved the part on Forth Tours up to the tourism section. That should clean up the article a little!

I've had a little think tonight about the proposed Vehicles of Lothian Buses. This could be possible with the information that's currently in the article. I would suggest that we move the following sections to this new article:

• The current fleet section
• Demonstrators section
• Penicuik City Link section from the Main fleet liveries
• Playing Cards theme section from the Main fleet liveries
• "Connect" branding section from the Main fleet liveries
• "Zoom to the Zoo" section from the Main fleet liveries
• Airlink 100 section

I would also suggest that the Park and Ride section is either deleted or "merged" with Services of Lothian Buses.

Thoughts, anyone? --5 albert square (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Park and Ride section already appears in Services of Lothian Buses, so it wouldn't need to be merged if we don't want it on this page. The last five that you mentioned as cndidates for moving into the Vehicles article also appear in the Services article, so moving them isn't necessary - the only reason they're still here is because I didn't delete them when I created the now-renamed Route List article, which I probably should have done. I would also suggest that parts of Tourism are copied across as it also discusses vehicles. Another possibility would be to merge List of Lothian Buses Preserved Vehicles into it as Mick suggested.

Well done on the History article by the way. It works very well. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on the history page :)

OK I'll maybe look at 'trimming' the other articles then or re-directing them to Services of Lothian Buses

By the way, I'd totally forgotten that Lothian Buses aided with the filming of Me Too! until I came across this! That did make me laugh! --5 albert square (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is still very long. The airlink 100, park and ride and contract services sections could be bumped over to the services article and then the section headings combined into one called "services" which directs readers to the new article. Also, some of the information in it is quite trivial- for example, a whole section on fares and stuff that reads more like a travel guide than an encyclopaedia, such as the Attractions accessible by bus subsection. There's a lot of good info here, it's just a case of making it accessible! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have a look over all the articles again at the weekend and just see what is duplicated --5 albert square (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've streamlined the service-related bits into one section and removed Contract Services as it can all be found in full over on the Services article. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Foundation date

I've just noticed this, in the infobox it gives the foundation date as 1919 (I think that's when it was Edinburgh Corporation Transport?) but in the history section it says that the company can trace it's roots back to 1871. Should we remove the foundation date from the infobox as it's not accurate or should we consider changing it to 1871? Just a thought to make it more accurate --5 albert square (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lothian Buses/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

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

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

Ref 16 is still a dead link.Y Ref replaced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref 47 redirects to a page-not-found.Y Ref removed.

Ref 49 does not appear to contain any relevant info.Y Ref updated.

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

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)

The formal bit

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

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):

7. 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)

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)

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)

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.