Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ethiopian Airlines/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Ethiopian Airlines

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep This has been open for a few months and it is close to a month since any major edits have been made to the article. The article is in pretty good shape and has improved throughout the reassessment. I beleive that most points raised have been addressed and in its current state it meets the Good article criteria. Any further issues are probably best dealt with at the talk page AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello community! I've reached this instance because there has been a discrepance with this editor over the quality of the article. I find ridiculous for the article to be reassessed for capricious actions, but should this be done, neither me (I've been the major contributor) nor the aforementioned editor (who has made just two contributions into the article, both of them today and none of them introduced new content) can be involved. I do believe a reassessment is not necessary at all, but will make this as democratic as it can be.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you did not give a chance to raise my rationale before calling it ridiculous

I believe this article should be de-listed because it fails to meet the following criteria for GA:

1. a. The History section is not clear and concise. It is entirely too long and needs to be broken down into sections.

b. The lead section does not summarize the most important points covered in the article. It goes no further that to introduce the subject and does not summarize the article.

3. a. Fails to address the main aspects of the topic - One of the reasons for the success of the Airline is that it has over the past few decades implemented an advanced system of education and training in a country with little or no technical training programs which is completely lacking in coverage of this article. A simple look at the the airlines website will show the following pages of information which with other sources should be incorporated into the program:

- There is very little coverage of the amenities available to passengers, livery, and marketing campaigns. Similar GA articles like: British Airways, Alaska Airlines, EVA_Air contain extensive information on the marketing, services, amenities, cabin structure, in-flight entertainment which is simply lacking from this article. This not from lack of information available, because a two second web search will again yield these pages from the airlines website which can be used a starting point for expanding this article:

And this independent online news article:

- The accidents and incidents section is laughable. It completely fails to cover except in passing a hijacking incident with is a significant event in the airlines history.


4. Article fails to be neutral and unbiased. In its dry list-of-facts manner of presentation, it fails to represent the spirit and vibrancy of the organization and the symbolic significance of its history and success to the region and continent. In its attempt to be NPOV, it fails to present the subject matter properly. It is a sort of reverse bias.

6. The article is not adequately illustrated. Look at the pitures. It looks more like this an article on the airplanes of history than the oldest and most widely recognized greatest airline in sub-Saharan Africa. When I think of Ethiopian Airlines, which I have been a passenger of many times these are not the images that come to mind.

In the end, as far as I can see the problem here is the same as what we see from many of the airline articles on wikipedia. Too much emphasis is paid to Aviation and not to the culture that builds around airlines. If a fair coverage of subjects like this is to be achieved then more input from outside of WikiProject Aviation is needed. I am biased. I know. But that is how Wikipedia works, I believe. Multiple view points arrive at a much more balanced perspective on articles. This article needs to be de-listed so that more people can have an opportunity to edit and contribute to it. Hopefully, a more rounded coverage of the subject can be achieved. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see things, you're mistakenly believing that the WP:GAR process is an expansion request. The accident section you mention above has a link to a stand-alone article that I created, which covers all the occurrences the airline went through in its history. You're being somewhat contradictory here: on the one hand you're requesting expansion, on the other you're saying that a section is too long. Let others decide.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that the history section needs to be broken down (that is divided into smaller sections). Which is what the tag I put on it said that you removed. The accidents sections does need to be expanded but so does the history. After division perhaps by time periods more detail needs to included to cover the full history besides airplane purchases and record breaking flights. Again that is more Aviation history than Airline history. However, there are much gaps in the coverage of this topic which is what I have a problem with. And I have listed them above

STOP EDITING YOUR POSTS TO INFLUENCE THE DEBATE. LIKE YOU SAID, LET OTHERS DECIDE! AND STOP WITH THE ATTACKS! TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. NOT ME. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've never commented at one of these before, but if this is an example of a good article, lord help us all. I found two examples of far too close paraphrasing in the first paragraph of the history section alone, and also a serious misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what a source said. The quality of that source is also almost certainly sub-par for the uses to which it's put. This was in the first paragraph of the history section. I fixed them, but this article clearly needs to be gone over quite closely.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, and feel free to contribute as much as you wish. This process is used to see if the article currently meets these criteria. The things you mention definitely fail these criteria and if you have only scratched the surface warrant further investigation. The previous review was unfortunately quite superficial, so it is hard to judge how carefully sourcing was checked. The aim is always to get the article up to standard and as long as someone is willing to work on it we generally allow them a decent chance to do so. AIRcorn (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note that I am looking at this version). From a quick look it fails criteria 1b as the lead contains information not presented in the body and does not summarise the article plus there are a couple of cleanup tags present (quickfail 1 - I think). As to the points raised above by Janweh64 (talk · contribs) I don't think the history section is too long, but he has a point about the broadness. The primary sources indicated would be okay to expand on this if secondary ones cannot be sound. This does fall under the Good article criteria as one of them is broadness. The accidents could do with a little expansion (not too much as that would lead to undue concerns) as it felt a little incomplete when I read it (i.e. it was the most deadly, but doesn't give us a number). The images is not really a GA concern unless better free ones are found (and even then it is highly subjective whether they are better or not). No comment on the neutrality of the article at this stage as that will require a closer look at the sourcing (I checked the "good safety record" one and felt it was a little weak, but not enough to delist solely on). One more point is that there are too many single sentence paragraphs and short sections, which is a prose concern. AIRcorn (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have only given the article a superficial review. The lead is an obvious one. It should summarise the article, not introduce new content. For example I could not find the following information in the articles body:

As well as that it doesn't really summarise the history of the aircraft, which receives a lot of space in the body. There are also cleanup tags present, which seem relevant:

  • Americans believed the country could host a strategic air base within reach of the Red Sea region and its surroundings and agreed to help the Emperor -- perhaps we should just delete this statement. It seems to be the only statement that cannot be verified by more reliable sources. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1998, the airline disrupted their flights to the Eritrean capital Asmara after a war erupted between the two countries.

The prose itself could be improved, as well as the single sentence paragraphs there is a news ticker style of presenting the information in some sections, especially the fleet one (with ,multiple sentences starting with "in February 2005, On 31 May 2005, in August 2010, in October 2011, in July 2012, in November 2012 etc"). The services section could be condensed to a single header so the short one or two sentence paragraphs could be presented better (or the information could be expanded). Also I think Janweh64 (talk · contribs) has a point about the broadness. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to make these comments, I appreciate it. First of all, I'd like not to talk about Janweh64 (talk · contribs). Despite some if his suggestions may be valid, I believe he is missing good article criteria point 3.a, for the article should only address the main aspects of the topic, i.e. passenger and cargo services for an airline, and not a broad coverage of all related aspects. Regarding his participation in the article, the only thing he has done is to place two maintenance tags, nothing more. If he thinks he can improve the article in either way, he can do so according to WP:BOLD rather than criticising the current version of the work made by others. It took me a lot of time, not to mention the effort, to gather and organise all the information now included in the page. Back to article content, maybe some sections should be improved and/or expanded (not falling into what Wikipedia is not), source-availability permitting. To this respect, Carbonix (talk · contribs) has recently made an interesting contribution by adding a table with the financial figures for the last years, properly sourced. I will consider the suggestions you make. Nevertheless, let me draw your attention concerning the following points in the lead:
  • The number of destinations is not only mentioned in the lead, it is also disclosed in the ″Destinations″ section
  • Same for Star Alliance membership: it is treated in the last paragraph of the ″History″ section.
That's all the comments I have for now. Again, thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have indicated by striking through the list of reasons I have raised this reassessment, some of the problems have been dealt with or were listed in error:
1. a. The history section has been broken down for readability as per my suggestion. I still believe it should be expanded but that is a matter of opionion and not grounds for delisting.
b. The lead is still an issue but that is apparent to everyone. I have struck through the list of problems with the lead that I believe have been dealt with. After the rest have been dealt with, summarizing the history section should cover this problem.
3. a. 1. I was mistaken about the inclusion of training programs and some additional info that has been added covers my first of three concerns about good article criteria point 3.a. However, there is still little to no detail about passenger services for the airline. The accidents section needs to list perhaps the top ten or five major incidents in the airlines history. Simply, stating that it had 60 accident/incident events leaves too much information to be desired. I believe that is the norm for other airline articles.
4. I believe dealing with my issue of more detail about passenger services will resolve this issue.
6. As AIRcorn, has pointed this is not a GA issue unless more free pictures can be found. I can find none. Therefore, this issue is mute and resolved.
Jetstreamer, I disagree that a person needs to contribute to an article to criticize it. I believe the whole point of an assessment is to have another editor that was not involved in the creation of the article look at the article from an uninvolved point of view. I have abstained from editing or contributing to this article because my POV would bleed through and show immediately. But please ASSUME GOOD FAITH. I obviously care very much about this article and want to see it improve. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will expand the ″Accidents and incidents" section a bit, as well as the in-flight entertainment stuff.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the ″Accidents and incidents″ section. It now mentions the three worst deadly accidents experienced by the company, with a proper link to each article.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NICE! I like it. Let the other articles deal with the gory details. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I will continue with the in-flight service asap.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are Ok with me crossing stuff out as it is done. I could instead put   Done. But crossing them out is somehow more satisfying :) I accidentally did cross stuff out without logging-in by the way. 128.8.73.101 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! and I did it again! አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Janweh64 (talk · contribs). Can you please comment on this? Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this progressing. It started off well (well not exactly at the start, but it improved quickly), but seems a bit quite now. Have you come to any conclusions regarding the status or do you want some advice? AIRcorn (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This review is still quite ;) active and progressing. There is further discussion on the articles talk page. I am confident we should be able to recommend its continued GA status soon. We may be able to do even better than that. But your advise is always welcome. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've been working very collaboratively with Janweh64 in the last days/weeks, and also two other users (Carbonix and EagerToddler39) have contributed either with edits or with discussions. Nonetheless, a pair of fresh eyes is always welcome.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Ethiopian_Airlines/1&oldid=1096661888"