Talk:Coastliner 700: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:28, 6 February 2012

A fact from Coastliner 700 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 September 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the bus service Coastliner 700 between Brighton and Southsea on the south coast of England, has been running for more than 35 years?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coastliner 700.

Wikipedia

Reference valid, or not?

It is being claimed that [1] is a valid reference for the sentence "The service operates along the South coast, stopping at several landmarks, among which are Brighton Pavilion and Chichester Cathedral." The reference makes no mention of Coastliner 700, and certainly doesn't say that it stops at Brighton Pavilion and Chichester Cathedral. It does mention that those two landmarks are in Sussex, but similarly it mentions numerous other landmarks, at which the route does not stop. In my view, therefore, the ref fails the requirements of WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

What are the views of other editors? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I've tagged that section as original research, both the Birdman and Caravan references are used in the same way. If sources can't be found that cite these events/landmarks as relevant to the route then the section should be deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, but also content that the website in question is a piece of crap. It is amateurish and should not be trusted as a reliable source. If that means taking it to WP:RSN then so be it. Of course, if the article gets deleted following the AfD then the point becomes moot.... --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 What are the views of other editors? - [[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 16:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 :This is exactly why I've tagged that section as original research, both the Birdman and Caravan references are used in the same way. If sources can't be found that cite these events/landmarks as relevant to the route then the section should be deleted. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 16:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
+::I agree with that, but also content that the website in question is a piece of crap. It is amateurish and should not be trusted as a reliable source. If that means taking it to [[WP:RSN]] then so be it. Of course, if the article gets deleted following the AfD then the point becomes moot.... --[[User:Bob Re-born|Bob Re-born]] ([[User talk:Bob Re-born|talk]]) 16:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)