Talk:Kelvin Scottish/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

From a negative veiw point, this a fairly "light-weight" article based almost on a single-source; however the article has been considerably improved since September 2010 and is possibly just at or about GA-class. I will therefore review the article in more depth, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

At this point of the review I will be mostly concentrating on "problems", so I may not comment here on the good points, but they will be covered at the end of the review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• History -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - I suggest that "It was the largest of the four new companies created in 1985" was clarified by changing it to "It was the largest of the four new companies created by the SBG in 1985", or by using similar such words.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The status of the company, based on comments made in the rest of this section, aught to be made clear in the first paragraph. My guess is the that company was a Limited Company fully owned by the SBG?
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The second paragraph is rather vague in respect of duration. Eight buses were hired in early 1985, but for how long; and similarly for how long were the twelve vehicles hired in Feb 1986 needed?
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - I assume that the "city operator" refers to Strathclyde Buses: for a (potential) GA this link should be unambiguous.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Ref 8 appears to be a dead link some of the time: I end up here when it breaks.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - It's not clear in the final paragraph whom "the company" is referring to - it could be SBG, Kelvin Scottish Omnibuses Ltd, or Kelvin Central Buses Ltd.
  • Fixed four of these. I'll need to check the book source to sort out the second and third, and I don't have it to hand at the minute. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Now done. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Branding and promotions -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Looking at the images of the yellow and blue buses I'm not sure that "...livery with a logo incorporating the Flag of Scotland" is true of the September 1885 livery. Its a stylised version of the flag with "Scottish" in one segment, but it is not Saint Andrew's Cross. I must try and look for the blue/blue livery's logo.
  • It basically used the SBG logo with the word "Kelvin" in front of it. So part of the Scottish flag, but not all of it, although Keith Jenkinson's book describes it as such. The logo didn't change when the livery did, so what you've seen should be the same. That bit could be removed if you think it would help. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I changed the wording slightly. Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fleet -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The comment "The Routemasters proved popular..." is a bit vague, popular with whom (passenger's, drivers, the company)?
  • Both passengers and staff, apparently. Reworded to clarify. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes (and the Geberal Manager). Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Fairly reasonable as an introduction and a summary. It does contain a statement that does not appear in the body of the article: "It was formed in March 1985 from parts of Walter Alexander & Sons (Midland) Ltd and Central SMT, ..."; which means that the History section needs to be expanded.

• That bit is covered, but under somewhat different wording, in the "Operation" section. The mistake was to describe the former operator as "Midland Scottish" in the body when it was actually Walter Alexander & Sons (Midland), which I've now fixed. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I'll accept it now. Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• At this point I'm putting the review On Hold so that these points can be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As the "corrective actions" have been completed satisfactorily, I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on your efforts in bringing this article up to GA-standard. Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Alzarian16 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)