Talk:Stagecoach Manchester/GA1

GA Review

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

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues here.

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):

   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.

7. 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)