Talk:Drukair/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is being reviewed by someone else and they should get additional time. I would suggest getting a picture of the RJ-85X or similar plane since there is so much text devoted to it. This article looks good and I predict it will easily pass GA. TeacherA (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The airline never operated the RJ-85X, as the program itself was cancelled. There are a number of photos of the BAe 146 in Druk Air livery available on the net, and have approached people for permission, but as yet, none has been forthcoming in the last 12 months or so. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comments
- The article could do with some more copyediting for flow. I've done some, but this is by far my weakest part of Wikipediaing, so I'll pass the ball on.
- It has been reworded in parts
- I would have liked to see a longer lead. While it talkes about the framework around the airline, is says little about the details of the fleet, operations and history (hard facts).
- Lead has been expanded
- As far as I have seen, it is not common to insert "politeness" terms such as "his majesty" in titles.
- Fixed.
- I can't hold you against it in this review, but there are spacing errors with some of the dashes. I've fixed those I found.
- Fixed
- First occurrence of currency is spelled out, additional mentions use ISO code. (fixed)
- Fixed
- In the "contemporary developments" section, a lot of past events are written as if they will occur in the futue.
- Fixed
- There has now been established concensus that destinations should be in table format, see for instance the tables in List of Braathens destinations or List of Dragonair destinations. This consensus has changed since the talk page comments made in 2009. This is not part of any GA criteria, so this can be merely be regarded as advice. In any case, the list needs to be de-boldfaced and the hyphens replaced with endashes.
- Smartened up and table added
- I would like to have seen a 'service' or similar section. What sort of frequencies are the various routes etc.? Could you mention something about on-board service, frequent flyer program etc. Doesn't have to be a lot, but something.
- A section was added but Russavia removed it claiming information about cabin services and standards to be unencyclopedic. Unfortunately he is highly uncommunicative and unwilling to discuss.
- I responded to your questions at User_talk:Russavia#Druk_Air. I did indeed remove a section which is IMHumbleO unencylopaedic. As mentioned on my talk page, all of what I removed is standard issue from airline to airline around the world. Druk Air is not an airline which has to compete with others - it is currently a monopoly into and out of Bhutan - there are no PTVs, there are no FFPs, there are no space-age reclining seats. It is, for the most part, another form of public transport. WP:NOTTRAVEL also has to come into play. The fact that it was only sourced to the airline itself, is proof enough to me that it is just another form of promotion; something that happens all over airline articles, and is not required. We aren't here to provide an advertorial, but an encyclopaedic article, and we should be careful that the line isn't crossed; but when it is crossed, it should be relevant information that one would expect to see in an encyclopaedia, not at wikitravel.org. On a side note, has one looked at http://www.drukair.com.bt/COMMON.aspx?Type=Corporate%20Information.htm. I would be hesitant to use this as a source for information, as it is obvious they have used the article that I expanded as the basis for their own info - note the use of "operational bases" - something that I included in the infobox, where before it said "hub". As mentioned on my talk page, I do have more information to add to the article, and it is something that is notable - the fact that they used to operate Mountain flights, and this will be added to the article itself in the next day or so; I am just collating information from the 50-odd sources I still have in Zotero for inclusion into the article itself. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your both right. Something has to be said, such as the 20–90 seating split, perhaps mention if there is complimentary meals and seat pitch. Cabin baggage size and carry-on luggage allowance is on the other hand not encyclopedic, for, as Russavia says, it is trivial and similar around the world. A company's website can be used as a RS for matters relating to the company itself, as long as it is factual and not related to issues outside the company. I would have said that for a flag carrier to not have FFP is more notable than saying they had one. Arsenikk (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I responded to your questions at User_talk:Russavia#Druk_Air. I did indeed remove a section which is IMHumbleO unencylopaedic. As mentioned on my talk page, all of what I removed is standard issue from airline to airline around the world. Druk Air is not an airline which has to compete with others - it is currently a monopoly into and out of Bhutan - there are no PTVs, there are no FFPs, there are no space-age reclining seats. It is, for the most part, another form of public transport. WP:NOTTRAVEL also has to come into play. The fact that it was only sourced to the airline itself, is proof enough to me that it is just another form of promotion; something that happens all over airline articles, and is not required. We aren't here to provide an advertorial, but an encyclopaedic article, and we should be careful that the line isn't crossed; but when it is crossed, it should be relevant information that one would expect to see in an encyclopaedia, not at wikitravel.org. On a side note, has one looked at http://www.drukair.com.bt/COMMON.aspx?Type=Corporate%20Information.htm. I would be hesitant to use this as a source for information, as it is obvious they have used the article that I expanded as the basis for their own info - note the use of "operational bases" - something that I included in the infobox, where before it said "hub". As mentioned on my talk page, I do have more information to add to the article, and it is something that is notable - the fact that they used to operate Mountain flights, and this will be added to the article itself in the next day or so; I am just collating information from the 50-odd sources I still have in Zotero for inclusion into the article itself. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- A section was added but Russavia removed it claiming information about cabin services and standards to be unencyclopedic. Unfortunately he is highly uncommunicative and unwilling to discuss.
- Lifeline and Woodford are both disambiguation pages.
- Fixed.
- There is a dead link with a WP:WEBCITE available.
- Fixed
- Ref 66 is missing a title. Refs 76 and 77 are incorrectly formatted (missing meta data).
- Fixed
- There seems to have been established consensus that old logos do not fall within the permitted non-free image use criteria.
- Removed.
Placing on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Passed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)