This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Typical assessment, utterly irrelevant and utterly disparaging as usual. It is a good job the people who create articles don't care about the people who assess articles or none of us would bother, we'd just curl up in a hole somewhere. Thanks for the support Mr assessor. I could not give a toss about "brands" anyway and it is clear you have no interest in buses. I wonder how encouraged you'd feel if I gave your articles scathing low scores.Stephen Allcroft (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then adjust the ratings to what you think appropriate. Of course, others are free to adjust it too if they don't agree with you. If there is wild disagreement then we'll have a discussion. Go for it! Stepho talk02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above some self-styled "white christian englishman" telling me I'm a woeful failure at describing Leyland Tiger as a brand (never my intention anyway, I regard the marketeers as the people who joyously murdered British Manufacturing industry) is a matter of utter irrelevance. Stephen Allcroft (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you are calling me a "white christian englishman" (I'm not English) or if you are talking about the guy that added the assessments (which wasn't me). Can't see why being white or Christian or English makes a difference anyway. Either way, please feel free to adjust the assessments. Can't go up to "GA" on the quality scale without a formal process but it easily goes to "B" (just below "GA"). And a "mid" level on the importance scale seems reasonable (not quite up to Routemaster importance but still quite significant). Stepho talk13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was referring to the chap who did the asessments, this was in his page about himself, also seems to be involved in projects on brands mareketing and economics but not wikiproject buses, If somebody who was _actually_ interested in the subject enough to be part of the project rated the page that would be better. Personally can't take it seriously enough to be altering it as an alternative to living the rest of my life including improving existing articles and creating new ones. If this guy does not mean his disparagements as a kick in the teeth whby does he keep on at my articles? Still no skin off my nose, water off a duck's back; etc Stephen Allcroft (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the ratings to be B class and mid level importance. Except for 'companies' being 'low' importance because outside of the UK Leyland is not a big player. But I won't argue if somebody bumps it to 'mid'. Back to improving the article :) Stepho talk02:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}