Talk:Stagecoach Manchester

Stagecoach Manchester was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buses High‑importance

	Buses portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Routes

Would it be a good idea to add a note in the 191 Service box to clearly indicate that it only runs at Peak Times and that Stagecoach Manchester Operate 3 x 391 Journey's on School Days between Stockport and Poynton High School Noddingdonkey142 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 374 was extended to Reddish to Replace the 319, 5 months ago 94.192.241.209 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then update it. Majorly talk 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stagecoach Manchester 391 journeys runs on Schooldays only, however the note stating this has been removed from the article. A similar situation has occured with the 191, which only runs between 6-9am and 3 and 6:30pm. 94.192.241.209 (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the point of having a notes column if it's not gonna be put to good use? 94.192.241.209 (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes column can be used to note things like odd routes such as circulars and limited stop routes. They should not be for timings of the buses. I'd prefer the notes column was removed completely personally. Majorly talk 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world, the references would be in the notes col. As it stands, very few (almost 0) route tables are referenced. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the Circular Route information could be added to the main table e.g. 307/308 Bramhall Circular and the rest could be removed. 94.192.241.209 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is so long I think it would probably be better in its own article. Majorly talk 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maynes Bus fleet transfer

There was at least one "supposed stocklist" around at the time of transfer, showing 38 vehicles. It was established that one vehicle Mayne No. 6, regn F 711 LFG to become Stagecoach 15374 had actually been sold in 2006. Therefore only 37 vehicles were transferred.

It is beleived that the "stocklist" was correct at the time Mayne decided to sell the bus opersation, but in the interim the sale of No. 6 was made --Keith 17:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

This isn't a bad article, but it would appear to fall a fair way short of the GA criteria at present. Detailed issues as follows:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is reasonable but could be better. The lead is well written and summarises the topic well, but contains material which is not covered in the main text, such as the number of passengers and the bit about the 192. The unsourced opinions in the history section (more below) need rewriting and sourcing. Sentences are generally well constructed but a few, such as the one about Stagecoach's purchase of GMBS, would benefit from rewriting.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Big problems here. The history section is almost entirely unsourced, and contains much content which could be considered original research, such as "it faced an uphill struggle". The depot list and fleet description have no sources. Of the five sources that are presented, three are company press releases. More independent are badly needed. Industry publications might be a good starting point.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The prose is generally well focused, and a sensible level of content provided. Listing the entire fleet seems like overkill and would appear to fail the requirement of not going into unnecessary detail. A more focused fleet summary with less trivial content (number of seats, depot allocations) would serve the article better.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
History contains rather too many unsourced opinions. Sentences such as "It was broken into two parts to make more money for the Government and also to fulfill the Government's 'sweet shop' bus company ownership vision." and "GMBS could only present a dowdy, dated image" are unacceptable without suitable references to support them, and should be presented as opinions rather than facts.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No issues here.
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):
Images are good quality and suitably tagged. Is an image of every type in the fleet really necessary? These might be better presented as inline images with suitable captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Sorry, but I have to fail this at present. There are pitifully few GAs on bus related topics, so I very much hope to see this back at GAN after the issues have been addressed, but it's going to need a lot of work - rather more than the two edits you've made to the article so far.

Reviewer: Alzarian16 (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stagecoach smartcard.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Stagecoach smartcard.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stagecoachingodley.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Stagecoachingodley.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stagecoach Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]