Talk:Skytrax

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Criticism?

This article lacks paragraphs with criticism. The history shows that those have been written, but some users reverted ALL. I would view such action as being vandalism. 134.247.251.245 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Any criticism must be reliably sourced. Removing unsourced claims is not vandalism. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing ALL instances of criticism and leaving nothing, thus creating the illusion that there is no criticism IS vandalism. There IS criticism: https://onemileatatime.com/skytrax-credibility/ 134.247.251.245 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The Ridiculous Games Airlines Play To Win Skytrax Awards, And Others… (godsavethepoints.com) 134.247.251.245 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

https://skift.com/2012/11/10/airline-review-site-gets-spanked-by-uk-advertising-industry/ 134.247.251.247 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/skytrax-research-a12-196416.html 134.247.251.247 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing things that aren't reliably sourced is not vandalising. Feel free to read what constitutes a reliable source and add anything that has been covered in one. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you did not bother to even take a look at the many sources I provided. Is Skytrax itself a reliable source in your view? It is an official Skytrax statement that e.g. Lufthansa gained five star for a business class that was at that time three years into the future, which contradicts the offical Skytrax policy that a feature must be rolled out to 80% of the fleet. Does 0% match the 80% criterion?

Btw., other Wikipedias (other languages) do list a couple of critisims. 134.247.251.247 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

None of those are Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Self-generated content like GSTP are generally not not RS. The criticisms need to be covered by reliable sources in order to be included. Here is a list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources The Lufthansa example is Wikipedia:OR. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"None of those are Wikipedia:Reliable sources.". Wikipedia Germany obviously has a different view on this Skytrax https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skytrax#Einzelnachweise 6 ist a well renowned German newspaper (FAZ): Andreas Spaeth: Aus der Luft gegriffen? In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. 17. Dezember 2017, S. 68.134.247.251.245 (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, different Wikis do have different standards. They are all independent. As I said already, "Feel free to read what constitutes a reliable source and add anything that has been covered in one." Lard Almighty (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, IMHO, you could ask yourself some questions. E.g. why Zurich is listed as one of the best airports - but does NOT have a five star ranking? There are more (twice as many!) five star airports then best airports, and even in that light (20:10) Zurich is a 4 star... Sorry, I do not want to offend you, but to me you create an image of not being totally impartial here... 134.247.251.245 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Again any questions I might ask myself and answers I might give are [[WP:OR]]. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"Self-generated content like GSTP are generally not not RS.": https://www.godsavethepoints.com/airline-games-to-win-skytrax-awards/ is not self-generated, it's an article written by an editor (or regular contributor, known to the staff an pictured (Gilbert Ott). "Gilbert Ott is an ever curious traveler and one of the world's leading travel experts. His adventures take him all over the globe, often spanning over 200,000 miles a year and his travel exploits are regularly featured on Good Morning America, BBC, The Sunday Times, Travel & Leisure, CNN and other leading news outlets." 134.247.251.245 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)