Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2ad0a02cc4b2308

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lothian Buses/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply

GA from 2013. Article tagged for needing additional citations because this article is very poorly cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply

Delist per nom, tried my best fixing it up once before and I really don't think this now supports GA status. Heck, by today's standards, I'm not entirely sure if it constituted it in the first place. Thank you for tagging it, anyway, as I'd planned on doing it about a year ago, but could never wrap my head around the system. Hullian111 (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delist. This article was poorly referenced when it was originally nominated for GA assessment in 2013. Re-reading my review, a huge amount of work went into ensuring that all of the article was properly referenced. In my opinion, it met the requirements for GA at the time, but at that time it was only about 44kB. It is now up to 62kB, and it appears that very few of the subsequent additions have been adequately referenced. (This seems to be an issue with quite a lot of GA articles that were reviewed a long time ago.) I think I agree that it is not at GA status in its present state, so would support delisting it. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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.