Talk:Simplifly Deccan

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Simplifly Deccan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am trying a good article review. Adityavagarwal Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

There are a few errors based on the good article criteria.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are clearly a few lines which can be merged. Examples include- "Nevertheless, Simplifly Deccan suffered high losses and merged with Kingfisher Airlines in April 2008. Kingfisher replaced the Deccan brand with Kingfisher Red in August 2008." could be replaced with "Nevertheless, Simplifly Deccan suffered high losses and merged with Kingfisher Airlines in April 2008, while the Deccan brand being replaced with Kingfisher Red in August 2008." This is because of the merging of the airline so the reason for the changing in the brand might be more apparent to the reader."In addition, he needed to raise funds;[25] Air Deccan had lost ₹213 crore (US$32 million) during the quarter ending 31 March 2007." It seems that something is missing before the amount. Perhaps a currency.Also should the statement made by anybody written in their exact words are to be included in double quotations.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The first introductory paragraph lacks any reference. Even though the information might be present in the successive references, but the paragraph and/or the lines within the paragraph as well can be referenced to those references.

   I do not believe references need to be listed again in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. All the information in the lead is directly from the body of the article, where all the sources can be found. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

   Yeah, guess I missed it.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   There could be more images (maybe of the other aircraft) if they are available.However, it seems fine with the current images. If any more images can be included then it might further improve the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Hello Adityavagarwal, sorry for the very late response. I have been busy of late but will address these concerns over the weekend. Thanks for your patience. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is all fine. No apologies. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your patience, Adityavagarwal. Here is my response to your comments:

• Examples include- "Nevertheless [...] might be more apparent to the reader. Actually, the brand change did not necessarily occur because of the losses. Air Deccan had a strong brand that helped it develop a loyal customer base. However, Kingfisher wanted to change the low-cost Deccan brand in order to align it with Kingfisher's full-service brand. Besides, more detail is provided in the body.

  Yeah, it seems fine in that sense.

• It seems that something is missing before the amount. Perhaps a currency. What do you mean? There is already the rupee sign in that statement.

  You mean in the figure, you are able to see the symbol? It shows a box as I see it.

  Yeah, I see the rupee sign like so: 213 crore. (Here, I actually embedded this picture so you could see the sign.) This might be a font or browser problem that you are having.

  Yeah perhaps, there were also few articles without the symbol, so I think it seems fine.

• Also should the statement made by anybody written in their exact words are to be included in double quotations. I believe I have done that already, for example the "he is from Venus, I am from Mars" quote. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I mean "It is not the elite that I consider as my customers. It is the humble cleaning women of my office, the auto-rickshaw driver and other such people that we would like to cater to. We want them to dream that they too can fly, and we want to make that dream happen."Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  For this, I think it is fine not to use double quotations. The indentation of the text implies that it is a quote. You can see that at Template:Quote, double quotations are not used. Also, here is an example of a featured article that does not use double quotations.

  Yeah, was searching for some GA or something like that. On seeing the quotation template earlier, it showed that verbatim were to be quoted, but it seems fine.

Nice work. The article seems fine for being a GA. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. The case has not been made for a change of the common name for the subject. bd2412 T 18:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Simplifly Deccan → Air Deccan – The airline is re launching operations from December 23rd 2017 also the website has been updated.

References

Bingobro (Chat) 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support, The airline rename itself. Sacker23 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, This iteration of Air Deccan only is a brand name for Capt. Gopinath's other venture, Deccan Charters. It is Deccan Charters, a completely different firm, that applied for the Regional Connectivity Scheme, as reported here, and here. The company is hiring crew for its RCS operations on the Deccan Charters' website's careers page. The fleet type and scope of business of the new Air Deccan is closer to the chartered operations of Deccan Charters rather than the massive Airbus A320 operation that the article describes. Newer material should actually go on the Deccan Charters page and eventually have its own page as more material is added. Trinidade (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes about the A320 part you are right however check the sources and have a search yourself you'll find more that it's a relaunch rather than Deccan Charters becoming a scheduled carrier.Also its the same companyBingobro (Chat) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The airline booking site is now up, and heres the about page that describes itself as "Air Deccan (a) unit of Deccan Charters."

Sure, but except from 2008-12 when was Air Deccan not a part of GR Gopinath's Aviation?Bingobro (Chat) 10:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashrajkumarjha (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yashrajkumarjha, please give your reasoning for your decision, Wikipedia does not work on a voting basis. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Trinidade. The new operation has very little to do with the complex history of the Simplifly Deccan described in this article. Information should be added to a new article or to Deccan Charters’ page to begin with. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Support As nominator.Bingobro (Chat) 04:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with Sunnya343 and Trinidade. Simplifly Deccan had a long history and this article should be as is. For the new airline, Gopinath may be using the same Air Deccan brand name, but it's a brand new airline altogether. The current Deccan Charters page needs to be updated with these details and eventually as mentioned by other users, it should be moved to a new article. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 05:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Congratulations

Dear captain gopinath sir is great 👍 me from nepal ROHAN 49.126.119.143 (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)