Talk:Virgin Atlantic Little Red/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Omni Flames in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Music1201 (talk · contribs) 03:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Very short article overall. I think once more information is added to the article, it will be a good article.
- I'm marking this as second opinion.
- I wouldn't say it was short, shorter articles have been made GAs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Request for second opinion. There are other short articles at GA as well though its not clear what the importance factor for this article is here since it has not been assessed by any of the Wikiprojects. Though written grammatically and linking all its references when possible, there is still the factor of what importance to attach to an article about a defunct airline which is not prominently in the news. It is currently rated as a "B"-article with no importance assessment attached. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about the notability of this article, you may take this to WP:AFD, but in my opinion notability has been established through the sources in this article. I am not going to provide a second opinion for this article, due to my previous involvement. SSTflyer 05:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- N.B. My comment was about the standard "Importance" assessment of High-Mid-Low normally used at Wikipedia. The article here has not been edited since the end of March. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- So, what you'd like is an importance assessment from the projects before you review it? I'm sure that someone at wp:airlines like @SSTflyer: could do that for you. I would do it but I got told off last time I did on one of my articles. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Its really up to @Music1201: If there is no neutral assessment of the article's importance from Wikiprojects on the Wikipedia scale of Top-High-Mid-Low then its up to Music1201 and the nominating editors to assess its relative importance for the purposes of the current assessment. It seems that often high importance articles are approached with a different emphasis and different attention to detail than low importance articles. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- So, what you'd like is an importance assessment from the projects before you review it? I'm sure that someone at wp:airlines like @SSTflyer: could do that for you. I would do it but I got told off last time I did on one of my articles. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- N.B. My comment was about the standard "Importance" assessment of High-Mid-Low normally used at Wikipedia. The article here has not been edited since the end of March. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about the notability of this article, you may take this to WP:AFD, but in my opinion notability has been established through the sources in this article. I am not going to provide a second opinion for this article, due to my previous involvement. SSTflyer 05:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Request for second opinion. There are other short articles at GA as well though its not clear what the importance factor for this article is here since it has not been assessed by any of the Wikiprojects. Though written grammatically and linking all its references when possible, there is still the factor of what importance to attach to an article about a defunct airline which is not prominently in the news. It is currently rated as a "B"-article with no importance assessment attached. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Music1201: I think this subject is notable. Little Red was a venture of global airline Virgin Atlantic and it became a competitor in the British domestic aviation market out of Heathrow, competing against longtime rival British Airways. Little Red suffered very low passenger loads and its demise was reported throughout the British media, on BBC, The Telegraph etc.
Also, consider that a short article on a short freeway between Denver and its airport is a GA (Peña Boulevard). No doubt this article on a venture of Sir Richard Branson to compete in the domestic British skies deserves a GA review. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Sunnya343: I don't think this article is quite up to GA standards yet mainly per criterion 3 because it's not broad in coverage. — Music1201 talk 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Music1201: How do you mean? I'd say it is as broad as it can be given it was only around for 2 years. Also seems unfair that you said you were going to ask for a second opinion then closing it without getting one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sunnya343: I don't think this article is quite up to GA standards yet mainly per criterion 3 because it's not broad in coverage. — Music1201 talk 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Closing as rejected: This article does not currently meet the good article criteria for the reasons described above. — Music1201 talk 00:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Music1201: Where is that second opinion that you were looking for? You had said that you weren't happy to commit to a review yet you decide without warning to close it without getting that opinion you asked for. I have already explained why it is as broad as it could be yet you decide to ignore it and shut it without any discussion. That is poor form. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just came across this nomination and was going to review it when I saw that it had been reviewed and not listed very recently. Music1201, could please possibly expand on your reasons for declining this nomination? You've mentioned that it isn't broad in coverage but you haven't mentioned exactly what it fails to cover, and what needs to be added to this article. It's completely pointless to decline a nomination but not give specific examples of what needs to be done to make it a GA, at least in my opinion. Also, length has nothing to do with the GA criteria and so is completely irrelevant here. Omni Flames let's talk about it 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Omni Flames: Thank you for your comment. If you would still like to review it for GA status, I have relisted it because I do not feel the decline and closing was in keeping with the GAN criteria. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @The C of E: I would personally prefer to resolve this with Music1201 if possible, as I feel like we can come to a compromise here. I've left him a message on his talk page, if he doesn't respond perhaps we can take this to the GA help desk. Omni Flames (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Omni Flames: I don't think @Music1201: wants to make further comment to clarify why he rejected it. I do contest his view that its not broad enough. It is because it mentions why it was founded, what happened at foundation, initial success, financial struggles, eventual closure and comments on rivals as well as what happened to the planes afterwards. Yes it was only 2 years old but I feel this article contains all the relevant information for it to be a GA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Omni Flames, The C of E — I declined this simply because it is a near-stub article. All other airline/aviation related articles are much more broad and detailed, I don't see at all how this could pass as a GA. — Music1201 talk 17:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Music1201: As has been explained above, length is irrelevant. It is the quality of the content that is the GA criteria. The reason why it is small in comparison is because it was only in operation for 2 years, with plans for it to close after 1 year but there is very good coverage of those 2 years, and the plans of putting it into operation beforehand. Also, it is nowhere near a stub, a stub is less than 1000 characters. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Omni Flames, The C of E — I declined this simply because it is a near-stub article. All other airline/aviation related articles are much more broad and detailed, I don't see at all how this could pass as a GA. — Music1201 talk 17:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Omni Flames: I don't think @Music1201: wants to make further comment to clarify why he rejected it. I do contest his view that its not broad enough. It is because it mentions why it was founded, what happened at foundation, initial success, financial struggles, eventual closure and comments on rivals as well as what happened to the planes afterwards. Yes it was only 2 years old but I feel this article contains all the relevant information for it to be a GA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @The C of E: I would personally prefer to resolve this with Music1201 if possible, as I feel like we can come to a compromise here. I've left him a message on his talk page, if he doesn't respond perhaps we can take this to the GA help desk. Omni Flames (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Omni Flames: Thank you for your comment. If you would still like to review it for GA status, I have relisted it because I do not feel the decline and closing was in keeping with the GAN criteria. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just came across this nomination and was going to review it when I saw that it had been reviewed and not listed very recently. Music1201, could please possibly expand on your reasons for declining this nomination? You've mentioned that it isn't broad in coverage but you haven't mentioned exactly what it fails to cover, and what needs to be added to this article. It's completely pointless to decline a nomination but not give specific examples of what needs to be done to make it a GA, at least in my opinion. Also, length has nothing to do with the GA criteria and so is completely irrelevant here. Omni Flames let's talk about it 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I second The C of E's comment. Length has nothing to do with the GA criteria. It's about how broad the article is in it's coverage, and you still haven't explained why this one isn't. That's a problem for FAC, not GAN. Obviously an article on, say, Planes, is going to be larger than one on a small, now defunct airline. Omni Flames (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)