Talk:Shuttle bus
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shuttle bus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discussion for english variant-discussion open till draft approval
editBritish English- The article was created with british english, in additon the article for Airport bus a type of shuttle bus is written in british english NotOrrio (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- this discussion will officially close in favour of keeping british english there were no contests and I had almost singhandedly written the entire draft in british english NotOrrio (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Source reviewing
editMany of the sources were considerd unreliable because they were either promotional or other wikis i checked through it and the only source i found that didnt fall under such category was Australia Bus and Coach I will crete a full assesement table to see find sources NotOrrio (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Source assesment
edit1.http://www.wikimotors.org/what-is-a-shuttle-bus.htm|
Pros:
-Does present a lot of information
Cons:
-Unreliable- wikisite
Overall Grade:
Unreliable: should be replaced
2. https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm39.htm
Pros:
-Counts towards GNG
-Independant: Run by an independant research insitute
-Reliable: Run by a research insitute
-Sigcov: Main topic is about shuttle buses
Cons:
-Website looks outdated
-Website information may be outdated
Overall Grade:
Good: Website is reliable and counts towards GNG, however looks outdated and information may be outdaded
Pros:
-Counts towards GNG
-Independant: News article
-Reliable: News article
-Sigcov: Main topic is about the increased market demand of airport buses a type of shuttle bus (maybe partial though)
Cons:
-Couldn't find any
Overall Grade:
Good-Perfect: Couldn't find any cons with this website and the website shows GNG
4.https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/
Pros:
-Reliable Website (run by victorian state government)
Cons:
-Doesnt really serve any purpose but to prove route 601 exists
Overall Grade:
Alright: Reliable source used to prove route 601 exists, however can possibly replaced with an article from monash university about the route instead for example about raid route
Pros:
-Reliable Website (run by queensland state government)
Cons:
-Doesnt really serve any purpose but to prove route 134 exists
Overall Grade:
Alright: Reliable source used to prove route 134 exists, however can possibly replaced with an article from griffith university about the route instead for example about said route
6. https://www.busnews.com.au/industry-news/1908/skybus-parent-relaunches-as-kinetic
Pros:
-Reliable Website (major australian article about bus transport)
-Does talk about skybus the shuttle bus mentioned in the section
-Potentially partial GNG (indepdant bus article, does talk about skybus an example of a shuttle bus)
Cons:
-Doesnt talk out skybus (the shuttle bus mentioned) alot
Overall Grade:
Alright-good: Source is reliable however main purpose seems to be to prove it exists could be considerd partial for sigcov however I am unsure
7. https://www.welcomepickups.com/paris/charles-de-gaulle-airport-to-city/
Pros:
-Mentions the bus in detail
Cons:
-Unreliable promotional
Overall Grade:
Unreliable- is promotional and should be replaced
8. https://tabiparislax.com/en/roissy-bus-complete-guide/
Pros:
-Mentions the bus in detail
Cons:
-Unreliable promotional
Overall Grade:
Unreliable- is promotional and should be replaced
9.https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/heathrow-londons-most-expensive-bus-23478475
Pros:
-Mentions the bus in detail
Cons:
-Unreliable promotional
Overall Grade:
Unreliable- is promotional and should be replaced
Pros:
-Reliable
-Mentions the bus in detail
-Can potentially satsify gng partially (both independnant and reliable)
Cons:
-Not much mentioning of the shuttle bus
-In terms of sigcov is half way at best
Overall Grade:
Good- Article contains alot of information and is reliable
11.https://www.discoverlosangeles.com/travel/the-guide-to-lax-flyaway%C2%AE-bus-service
Pros:
-Mentions the bus in detail
Cons:
-Unreliable promotional
Overall Grade:
Unreliable- is promotional and should be replaced
Summary-
Overall there were a few problems with the sources, the major one is that sources 1,7,8,9 and 11 are unreliable and are in dire need of replacement, sources 4 and 5 are reliable but could be replaced with better sources. Notability is doing good with 2 sources showing full notability with 2 potentially being partially notable would likely require 1 or 2 sources though before showing that this article is notable NotOrrio (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)