Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Emirates (airline)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Emirates Airline

Hi. Can you please tell me how the Emirates Airline article can be improved. Thanks --MoHasanie  Talk  23:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Born2flie

Peer review (this checklist is based off of the {{GAList}} example and incorporates some of the Featured article criteria as well)

---

There is an automated tool to identify many problems with an article conforming to WP:MOS here.

1. Prose

   a. well written: b. comprehensive: c. factually accurate: d. summary style:

   • The History section is very disjointed, as if the article can't decide if it is about the airline or the financial performance of the airline. There is too much minutiae about the airline.
   • The lead section contains too much dated information that could change from time to time, i.e. the airline performance and size rankings. If these are to be included, they should include the year that applies since it may not be true in the future. If these assessments about the airline are determined by an organization separate from the airline, then that information should be stated as well.
   • The article is extremely long, and includes many sections which are not in keeping with the page content guidelines of the Airlines project.
   • Because the article is long and broken up into so many sections and subsections, the table of contents is extremely long, longer even than the infobox.

2. References

   a. use of inline citations: b. reliable sources: c. No original research:

   • The amount of company press releases used as references in the article should be reviewed to see if they have contributed to the POV tone of the article.
   • There are formatting issues with some of the links used as inline citations. Review WP:CITE for instructions.

3. Style

   a. lead section: b. appropriate structure: c. conforms to WP:MOS:

   • The lead section is too broken up. For the article size, it should only have three or four paragraphs.
   • The lead section should summarize all of the information contained, possibly by ensuring that each of the article sections is addressed.
   • Many section and subsection headings seem as if they can be combined, the Services section for instance.
   • Please review WP:MOSIMAGES for proper placement of images to the left of the article, and recommendations to prevent sandwiching text between images on the left and right of the article.
   • Sections which are based on or refer the reader to a main article about that subject should paraphrase the subject in a paragraph.
   • Footnote sections are located after tables in the article, rather than at the very end.

4. Controversy

   a. neutral point of view: b. stable, with no edit wars:

   • There is a sense of the article being written by a fan. Not necessarily a bad thing for an article, so long as the article maintains a sense of neutrality in its language. The overall sense of the article comes across as if the airline was a favorite sports team. It should be neutral and simply present the facts.

5. Graphics

   a. quality: b. image licenses:

   • The following images are of low-quality and/or low-resolution, and should be reviewed to determine if they are required:
     • File:EmiratesEconomyClassA380.jpg
     • File:Emirates Economy Class 777 interior.jpg
     • File:Emirates Boeing 777 Business Class.jpg
     • File:Emirates Headquarters 183.jpg This image is of such poor quality, it should be removed.

6. Quality:

   Article classification:

   I think that although the template automatically rates this article as a Start-class, the size and quantity of information suggests that it should be a C-class. The referencing issues are not so severe that they should result in a downgrade of the article. I do think that the challenge is to remove the suggestive POV from the article, as well as trim the article to a manageable size and only the truly critical information about the airline. Otherwise the article remains too much of a fansite. --Born2flie (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.