Jump to content

Talk:Alaska Airlines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.67.3.61 (talk) at 21:47, 30 July 2012 (→Hawaii service livery). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeAlaska Airlines was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 2, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

Peer Review for this article

Hello, I have started a peer review for Alaska Airlines right here. I have done a lot of work on this article over the past year or so, and would love it if someone other than myself gave it some critique before I (eventually) promote it to GA status and even go so far as to promote it to FA status, though this peer review will probably be the beginning of continual improvements to this article; I bet it still has a long ways to go before a GA review takes place. Anyone is welcome to take a look and review this article; long or short, all of your comments are appreciated. Don't post any comments here; please post them on the review so I can see all your comments on this article. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review has now been archived and closed due to lack of comments. —Compdude123 17:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continental US

"...not only within the state of Alaska but also throughout the Continental United States...". Alaska IS a part of the "continental" United States. It is NOT a part of the "contiguous" United States. Common colloquialisms are not a replacement for effort and research. Or a fucking map, for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎216.115.124.169‎ (talk) 14:27, March 22, 2012

Do not assume Wikipedia to be perfect 150% of the time, and assume good faith by not calling other editors "idiots." To be honest I thought I corrected this already, but perhaps I'm just imagining things... —Compdude123 04:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Nope I didn't correct this, I was thinking of the following sentence) BTW I actually wrote the sentence you referred to so in a way you're calling me an "idiot," which is not cool. —Compdude123 05:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the section header from "Idiots" to "Continental US". The prior title not only violates WP:NPA; it's not descriptive of the topic and is unhelpful. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I prefer the word "contiguous," there's nothing wrong with using "continental" here; "Continental United States" is an accepted way of referring to the 48 states excluding Alaska and Hawaii:
2.b being the part of the United States on the North American continent; also  : being the part of the United States comprising the lower 48 states . "Definition of CONTINENTAL". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
TJRC (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contiguous" actually sounds more encyclopedic and makes more sense because one can argue that Alaska is part of the "continental United States" (and Hawaii is not). Contiguous is probably the correct word to use here. —Compdude123 02:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree; my point is that using "continental" does not rise to the level of idiocy, as claimed by the IP editor... who, by the way, is not always so clear on the meaning of words himself. TJRC (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP geolocates to the Fairbanks, Alaska school district, so it's some school kid... (not me, of course :D) —Compdude123 05:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Compudude live in Alaska? "Continental" can be considered derogatory here just as "Indian" can be considered derogatory even though it is "generally accepted." Idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.124.169 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most Alaskans consider it "derogatory" (this one doesn't anyway) its just plain wrong. However that doesn't make it ok to attack other users and resort to petty name calling. That being said, this really is a frustrating issue for Alaskans. Our fellow Americans have a lot of really wrong ideas about AK. I've been told I don't live in the US, that we aren't really a state, that we don't get to vote in presidential elections, that it is impossible to use UPS or FedEx to ship things to AK (in spite of the fact that the Anchorage airport is very important freight hub) and so forth. It can get very frustrating to see this misconceptions, such as the whole "continental" thing, which I've personally argued with a shipping department about before. They actually seemed to think Alaska was not on the mainland of North America, possibly due to those stupid maps that we all saw in school that show Alaska in a box off the coast of Mexico. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alaska Airlines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am quick-failing this nomination as there are clean-up banners that are obviously still valid, e.g. dead links and citation needed. Some of these date back to January 2010, Articles with dead external links (August 2011, October 2011), Articles with unsourced statements (April 2011, February 2011, January 2010, July 2011, May 2011, October 2011). When this is sorted please re-nominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it, I was afraid this might happen. I wasn't the one that nominated it, but I do agree that the GA nomination was premature. I will take care of removing all the citation neededs and dead links so that this will be a definite good article candidate. Thanks, Compdude123 15:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alaska Airlines/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC) I told Compdude123 I would add my comments into the peer review of the article some months ago. Given that I never did so, I have now the opportunity to redeem myself with this review.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall review

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). No dead links so far.
2c. it contains no original research. Original research found here. See below. Original research removed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No issues found.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Everything is ok.
7. Overall assessment. Article passed

FYI: I have fixed the last dead link left in this article. Since I couldn't find an archived version I replaced it with another website that said the same info. —Compdude123 04:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

Early years (1932-1945)

I'll start my review with this first sub-section. At this stage, I'm not checking whether the information is reliably backed by the sources, but will do it soon.

  • Given that Wikipedia does not require a minimum number of inline citations for any sentence, information contained in a paragraph that comes from a single source can be put at the end of that paragraph. However, it is not clear where the contents of the second paragraph —consisting of several sentences— comes from. I therefore suggest splitting references 9 and 10 (current version) so as to have each sentence properly referenced. Furthermore, there's an awkward sentence in parenthesis in the middle of the paragraph that can be properly integrated into either the previous sentence or the following one. Much the same consideration can be given to the last paragraph.
 Done – For the second paragraph, I moved the ATW ref (formerly ref 10) up to the part about McGee getting into the mining business. I got rid of the parentheses as well. As for the last paragraph, both refs back up everything in the paragraph so they're fine how they are. —Compdude123 02:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding third and fifth paragraphs, I suggest moving the inline citations to the end of each sentence (or paragraph if applicable), bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Compdude123 02:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I have fixed the references in the last paragraph so as to follow the numbering for the inline citations. It is currently backed by two references, but I still don't know which of them is supporting which sentence (Let me tell you that I haven't checked yet whether the references in the section are properly backed by the sources provided). Is it that the paragraph is supported by both inline citations appearing at its end? Please clarify. In the meantime, I'll jump to the comments for the next sub-section.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both refs cover all of the info in that paragraph, so they are fine how they are. —Compdude123 22:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Jetstreamer Talk 10:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion after WWII (1945–1949)

  • The first sentence of this section is unsourced, while the second one contains two inline citations. Again, I'll ask to split that two references so as to have both sentences properly sourced.
The first citation covers both sentences, but the the second one covers the second sentence. To make that more clear, I copied the first citation to the first sentence. —Compdude123 23:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to have “Worldwide charter flights” as a fourth-level heading? In my opinion, wiping it out gives more continuity to the text.
Removed subheading. I agree that it's unnecessary. —Compdude123 23:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I additionally took the freedom to make some minor improvements to the grammar of this sub-section in order to avoid the repetition of words, wikilinked, etc. Furthermore, I archived some of the references in order to avoid dead links in the future.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This subsection is also done. I will continue with the review for the next sub-sections below.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New leadership (1950s)

  • The first paragraph is unsourced.
 Done – Added source. —Compdude123 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify the following: “That year also saw the CAB award Alaska Airlines with the long-coveted routes from Anchorage and Fairbanks, in Alaska, to Seattle and Portland in the continental United States; this would become permanent in 1957.” I think this needs a rewording, as the main idea is not clear.
 Done – Reworded sentence to read like this: “In 1951, the CAB awarded Alaska Airlines with a temporary certificate allowing them to operate on routes from the Alaskan cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks to Seattle and Portland in the contiguous United States; this award would become permanent in 1957.” —Compdude123 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some minor changes to the sub-section in order to improve the grammar (avoiding the repetition of the world airline, among other things), and also added a wikilink to the 1950s decade.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The jet age (1960s)

  • Nothing to comment.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference number 14 states Head Office: 2320 Sixth Av., Seattle, Washington, USA. Nothing is said there about that place being located in Belltown. This is original research unless a proper source is provided supporting that that particular address is in Belltown. The very same assertion can be found in the article for that Seattle's neighbourhood, for which I suspect it was copied as is from that article. Apart from that, is this relevant to the article? I suggest removal.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed this sentence entirely; I agree that it's irrelevant and unnecessary. —Compdude123 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Jetstreamer Talk 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey are you going to finish reviewing this article? Looking forward to additional comments. Thanks, Compdude123 04:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will. I'm not plenty of time these days, so please be patient.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic hardship (1970s)

  • It's hard to find a connection between the first sentence of the paragraph and the following one that deals with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (I guess it, though, but it's preferable to have it explicitly stated in the article). I think an additional sentence explaining the reasons that led to the grounding of cargo aircraft will give more readability to the entire sub-section.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I rephrased the first few sentences of that paragraph. It now reads like this: "However, the airline was not in good financial shape at that time. Like much of the airline industry, Alaska Airlines was hit with rising fuel and operating costs and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Revenues were significantly reduced when work on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was delayed. The airline's cargo aircraft had played a key role in building the pipeline, but now sat idle." I also rephrased parts of the first paragraph, too. —Compdude123

Post-deregulation expansion (1978–1990)

  • I made some improvements to the grammar and aesthetics, but the sub-section looks fine the way it is. Please check the changes out, as probably there's even a better way to present this information. You're kindly invited to modify any of my changes for the sake of tidiness. In particular, is it correct to state that both Horizon Air and Alaska Airlines are subsidiaries of Alaska Air Group since the former was acquired by the latter?--Jetstreamer Talk 12:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horizon Air remained separate from Alaska Airlines, not its parent company Alaska Air Group. I also made some other spelling and grammar fixes to that section. —Compdude123 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New competition, new technologies (1990s)

 Fixed – The info is from ref 10. To make that more clear, I added more citations to that source at the end of each paragraph. —Compdude123 23:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the paragraph that claims the airline's MD-80 fleet peaked at approximately 45 in 1996: would it be possible to state the exact number of these aircraft by that time?
 Done The airline had a total of 44 MD-80s at that time, according to the ref. —Compdude123 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the following paragraph: the airline added another destination in Russia. Which was it?
I don't know; the ref doesn't say. —Compdude123 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed – it's a minor detail that doesn't really need to be included anyway. —Compdude123 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a reference at the middle of this paragraph (<ref name="alaska air group history" />) backing the acquisition of new Boeing 737s. Why is this reference not placed at the end of the corresponding sentence? Is it not supporting the fact that the airline ordered both the Boeing 737-700 and the -900? By the way, it would be of encyclopedic value to say how many of these aircraft were actually ordered, if possible.
 Doing... I found this Seattle Times article and I will include the info once I get the chance. —Compdude123 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – I added that source to the article and also added the number of aircraft ordered. —Compdude123 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing flights across the USA (2000s)

  • As per WP:CITEFOOT, I moved references some references to the end of corresponding sentence, and tidied-up the sub-section a bit.
  • The introduction of services to Dallas is unsourced, as are the Bellingham, Washington to Hawaii ones. As for the flights to Hawaii, all the cities mentioned were served from Portland, OR, Sacramento, CA, Oakland, CA, and Bellingham, WA? Please clarify.
minus Removed mention of Dallas (couldn't find source) as well as Bellingham (not needed). Also removed was the sentence listing all the cities served in Hawaii and cities on mainland USA where service to Hawaii is offered. It seems like a travel guide. I just listed the initial service to Hawaii. —Compdude123 23:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To mark which occasion? I placed a {{which}} tag in the text, please clarify.
 Done – Seemed pretty obvious to me, but I clarified it anyway. The Spirit of Seattle was to mark the airline's transition to an all-Boeing fleet. —Compdude123 00:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The airline planned to introduced more 737 Combi aircraft towards the end of 2007. Did it do so or not?
Not sure. I wondered the same thing myself but was unable to find any press release regarding additional combi aircraft being introduced. So I have now removed the information. —Compdude123 00:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route map used a reference for Minneapolis–St. Paul, Austin, and the other destinations in the sentence cannot be used, as it does not provide the dates specified in the text.
 Done – Replaced route map ref with actual press releases from the airline's website. —Compdude123 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph says that the airline planned to start flights between San Jose, CA, and Kahuliu and Kona in Hawaii, but it only started a service between Sacramento (not San Jose) and Kahului. Why?
 Fixed – it should say that they announced the service from Sacramento would begin on the specified date; it's more consistent with the ref. —Compdude123 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed sentence. —Compdude123 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're nearly finished reviewing the history section and I've addressed your concerns, (sorry for taking so long with this section) I'm looking forward to additional review of the article and your stamp of GA approval. —Compdude123 00:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just pointing out that you seemed to have forgotten about the 2010s section. Any critique for that section? Thanks, Compdude123 05:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I actually missed it. Will add it below in a jiffy.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010s

  • Is it necessary to state that the airline announced a service and also to claim that this service began? In my opinion, to state that the flights started is enough. Apart from that, the only reference provided deals with a future event, but there's no source supporting the actual commencement of these flights.
 Fixed —Compdude123 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something similar occurs in the next paragraph. It's claimed that Horizon aircraft would be painted in Alaska's decor. Have they started painting at least one of Horizons' aircraft in Alaska Airline's livery? You may say that an image is included, but I'm afraid that's not enough evidence, according to WP:V.
 Not done – Yes, a lot of their aircraft are painted in the Eskimo livery. I live in Seattle and see Horizon's aircraft fly over my house everyday, and I don't see any that are painted in the old livery. There may be a few painted in that old livery still. I couldn't find any press release mentioning that all of Horizon's aircraft are in the new livery, though. —Compdude123 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What “ER” means for a Boeing 737-900 (or any other aircraft) is not needed here. Such details can be found at the corresponding aircraft article, so I've removed it and linked the aircraft model.
 Fixed It actually didn't say what "ER" stood for on the Boeing 737 Next Generation article, but I have explained that there. —Compdude123 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made some minor copyedit to the paragraph dealing with profits for 2010.
  • The paragraph mentioning Facebook does not give due weight to those events that are important to the history of the airline, as the use of biofuel flights really are. I strongly suggest removing the Facebook sentence. I find it completely irrelevant, as most airlines currently have their Facebook profile.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed facebook stuff. —Compdude123 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least a source supporting that the disruptions and new routes mentioned in the last paragraph effectively occurred is also needed. In summary, an announcement that an event will take place is not enough to support it actually occurred. This section needs additional references supporting the occurrence of the events stated. Two good sites for sources are www.centreforaviation.com and atwonline.com.

--Jetstreamer Talk 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed – Added press releases that talk about commencement of services. —Compdude123 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate affairs

I archived all the references included in the section.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Employees

Alaska Airlines Foundation

Alaska Air Cargo

  • Made a minor correction regarding the version of 737s flown by the airline.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference provided says nothing about the aforementioned versions of 737s. Please provided a source for this claim. I've tagged the sentence needing sourcing. Nevertheless, I believe this information belongs in the fleet section. Otherwise, a comment should be added pointing out that belly capacity is used on regular passenger flights.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed mention of aircraft. In its place I mentioned that it has the most extensive cargo operation on the West coast of any passenger airline. —Compdude123 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations

  • Put the image below the {{Main}} template.
  • The first paragraph has two dead links. I have marked one of them, the other was already marked.
 Fixed – With the first ref in that paragraph, the link to the archived page was messed up, but I've fixed that. For the second dead link I just removed that sentence because it was unnecessary.
 Not done – I've had no luck at finding a source for this information. But I don't really want to remove it though. :| —Compdude123 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done! I now added a source, with thanks to John Carter (talk · contribs) who provided me with one. You do have to have a HighBeam account to view the whole source, but that's not an issue here. —Compdude123 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph is unsourced.
 Already done, but I just forgot to mark it as such. —Compdude123 22:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth reference announces a future event. As above, the actual occurrence needs sourcing.
 Not done – Again, I couldn't find a source. Sorry. —Compdude123 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put a {{fact}} tag to both this an the above unsourced statements for the time being. Not so serious, as long as no additional unsourced statements show up.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added an introductory sentence to the list of codeshare partners
  • The last reference doesn't say when both airlines's flights started being part of oneworld Global Explorer fares. A citation is required for that date.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Source found. —Compdude123 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet

Current fleet

 Done – Source found. —Compdude123 19:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet history

 Not done – Tried to look for a source but failed. —Compdude123 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I'm having is that many newspaper websites charge money in order to view the full text of articles in their archives. The best that I've found are statements like "Alaska will keep all of Jet America Airlines' MD-80 aircraft" but it never says that the aircraft are MD-82s. —Compdude123 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding {{subscription required}} to that references? No problem in doing that, as long as few of them are included. Are you a subscriber of any of the references you are mentioning?--Jetstreamer Talk 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No and that's the problem I'm having. I might try Highbeam research's website when I get the chance. —Compdude123 05:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (sort of) – The best I could find was that they acquired MD-80s, so I modified the text to just say that. Also fixed it in the 1980s section, and added info that Jet America was originally operated as a separate airline, but then merged into Alaska. —Compdude123 19:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boeing press release included in the last paragraph has been archived. It does not mention many of the claims it is supposed to support for the first sentence, i.e. that the 737-200QCs were able to accomodate 111 passengers in an all-passenger configuration or that the cargo pallets were called "igloos". As for the second sentence of the paragraph, the reference provided briefly describes the 737-200C that was donated to a museum, and nothing is said about replacing them with 737-400 due to fuel inefficiencies. I suggest checking the content of the entire paragraph to comply with the information the two references do include.
 Doing... I got back from a weeklong vacation, and am going on another vacation this weekend. Other than that I have other things in real life that are more important for me to spend time on right now. I will try and fill in the referencing gaps soon. —Compdude123 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Compdude123 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the tables showing the evolution of the fleet across the years can be merged into a single table that includes all the content currently split in two. This is just a suggestion, and it doesn't have to be implemented. Just consider this comment for future FA nomination.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not do that, just because it would take up more space vertically, and there would be wasted space on the sides of the table. I don't want it to look like this, where so much space is wasted. —Compdude123 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments will be added once my latest ones are addressed. Can you please point out where the review guidelines say that there is a deadline for finishing a review?--Jetstreamer Talk 01:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. On the time issue, it's less a set in stone issue and more one of common courtesy. If I were to write an article and know it would be reviewed for four months I'd just skip the process. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is it being reviewed against review guidelines and if so why, that has nothing to do with reviewing GAN's its a disambig page? Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles mentions a lightweight review and a four-month review that is still unfinished does not appear to be lightweight. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not checking every little detail, but I'm certainly checking for accuracy and verifiability, apart from prose and aesthetics. That's the way I do things, and that's the way I work here at Wikipedia. Sorry for being rude, but I don't see you as a prolific contributor to this particular article; actually, the history page counts no edits from you. I will continue with my review tomorrow. And thanks for pointing out my linking to a disambiguation page: WP:RGA was to be the correct link.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind that it's taking so long, but it'd be nice for the reviewing to go faster. I'm busy in real life right now, and don't have much time to address Jetstreamer's concerns. —Compdude123 04:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livery

  • The first paragraph is unsourced.
 Done – Ref addded. —Compdude123 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite <ref name="AlaskaFleet"> takes the reader to the basic 737-900 fleet information (and not to information related to the whole fleet as expected), it is used several times as a source for special liveries. I suggest adding a new reference for each special livery, if available (as is actually the case). However, doing this does not provide with much of the information stated for each special livery. Just two examples: this reference provides neither the registraton of the aircraft wearing the Spirit of Disneyland II livery nor that it replaced the one worn by a retired 747-400; also, this other reference doesn't back up the fact that the aircraft was painted for the Disneyland Resort's 50th anniversary.
 Done – Better references added. —Compdude123 02:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding N792AS, I wouldn't regard a picture from Airliners.net as reliable. It seems that the problem with tail numbers is widespread here, so I suggest the removal of all of them from the article. After all, is it necessary to disclose the tail numbers?
 Done – Tail numbers and Airliners.net reference removed. —Compdude123 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am really looking forward to your completion of this review and getting the article up to GA status! I hate to be impatient with you and I know you have a life (at least I hope you do :D) outside Wikipedia, but this has taken far too long. Can you please finish up the review sooner rather than later? Thanks, Compdude123 03:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on the right track to GA status. You guessed well, I'm pretty busy these days. I will continue reviewing tomorrow, time permitting, and hope will finish this review.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Services

On-board meals and beverages

  • The first reference of this sub-section takes the reader to the airline's “Food & Beverage service” info, but nothing is said there about a product named Northern Bites or the date it was launched. Furthermore, the “Picnic Packs” mentioned in the article appears in this url, and not in the one included. Is suggest explicitly including every different url needed to support the first paragraph, as the reader should not navigate the only url provided to discover the stuff presented in the page for theirself.
 Fixed, now everything in this section is suitably referenced. —Compdude123 04:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've archived and moved the Starbucks reference. The last sentence of the paragraph including it is unsupported by that source, and has been marked as unsourced accordingly.
The last paragraph actually was supported by the reference. —Compdude123 04:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. It was fine the way it was.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On-board entertainment

  • I could find nothing related to WAEA in <ref name=alaska-awards />
minus Removed <ref name=alaska-awards />. —Compdude123 04:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two references have been archived.
  • The last paragraph was relocated.
  • A dead link was marked.
minus Removed the dead link, since there was a ref there already. —Compdude123 04:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On-board internet access

  • Where in reference <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/splash.do?execution=e1s1 |title=Gogo Inflight Internet |publisher=Gogoinflight.com |date=November 18, 2010 |accessdate=August 22, 2011| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20110711104155/http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/splash.do?execution=e1s1| archivedate= 11 July 2011 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> does Alaska Airlines come into play?
 Fixed by replacing with a reference to the actual press release on the website. —Compdude123 05:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find anything related to Row44 in the reference provided for that sentence. Furthermore, please check the tense of the entire first paragraph.
minus Removed that ref; completely irrelevant to the text. —Compdude123 16:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unsourced claim has been marked with a {{fact}} tag.
minus Removed sentence with the unsourced claim. —Compdude123 16:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three references have been archived.

Lounge

  • I could not verify the claim that Delta Sky Club members have access to Alaska's Board Room lounges, so it has been tagged with {{FV}}. The corresponding reference has been archived.
minus Removed —Compdude123 23:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the end of this review as I intended to be, but at least another entire section has been passed through the process.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what's the status here? Reviews are supposed to take only 2 weeks. This is quickly approaching 5 months. --Rschen7754 06:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed to take two weeks? Can you please point out where is that written at? My time is limited these days. I will continue with the review as soon as I have the time to do so.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the Good article criteria. You can also put the article "on hold" or ask for a second opinion. The review process itself should take, at most, two weeks." WP:GAN. --Rschen7754 17:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite taking a look at WP:GAN several times, I completely missed that. Thanks for poiting it out. I've finished my review today.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mileage Plan

  • The section includes too much information, so detailed that it looks like a travel guide. I suggest some cleanup so that it includes the essential information related to the mileage plan of the company and their partners. In my opinion, the first paragraph is enough.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Shortened this section to two paragraphs. —Compdude123 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Club 49

 Done —Compdude123 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents and accidents

  • Suggest changing the name of the section to ″Accidents and incidents″
 Done —Compdude123 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be great for the section to have an introduction, including a summary of the number of fatalities for all the deadly events, disclosing the number of aircraft that were written off, etc.
 Done —Compdude123 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The {{further}} at the top of the section has been removed, as all the articles within that template are wikilinked in their corresponding entries.
  • Can the text put in quotations marks for some of the occurrences be written in prose?
 Not done – Not sure how else to write the text in a way that wouldn't look like I was copying it. —Compdude123 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will put the article on hold until my latest comments are addressed. Almost five months later, this concludes the review.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, we're done!!! Finally!! —Compdude123 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now in condition to be promoted. There are still some issues, but they can be addressed later if the article is eventually nominated for FA status. Congratulations!--Jetstreamer Talk 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Finally, it's done: my first Good article! So glad that this is done, and I'm sure this will be the first of many good articles I promote. Let me know if you want me to do a GA review in the future, I'd be happy to do so. I promise I won't take so long. —Compdude123 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Alaska have focus cities? Source Needed...

I thought Alaska Airlines didn't have any focus cities. But apparently I am wrong because certain IP users keep adding them. Please provide a reliable source proving that Alaska Airlines has focus cities if you want to add them. Otherwise your edits will be reverted. This article is currently undergoing a good article review so it's especially important that anything likely to be challenged must be sourced. If you're unsure how to format it, it's okay to just put a link here and I can format the reference correctly. Again, you must have a source before adding the focus cities. Thanks, Compdude123 16:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proof for Maui, Honolulu Focus city

In the airline industry, a focus city is a location that is not a hub, but from which the airline has non-stop flights to several destinations other than its hubs. Other terms with equivalent meaning are "minor hub", "mini-hub", "hublet", "key city", or "base." The term 'focus city' was originally used by various US airlines as a marketing term to promote operations at secondary destinations in the 1990's; however, widespread usage has greatly expanded the definition. There is no evidence of any regular use of the term by non-US airlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.177.227.208 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 209.183.55.115 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


32.177.227.208 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC) NOTE Definition of Focus City, along with Alaska Air . Com Route Map of Hawaii Schedules.[reply]

Okay but can you please find a source saying that? Your comments seem like original research which isn't accepted on wikipedia. Please paste a web address below that explicitly says that Alaska Airlines has sources. Thanks, Compdude123 17:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Compdude, Please don't threaten me as I mentioned on your talk page, I am not invested in this as much as you in terms of a Greek or Geek lifestyle. Focus cities interpretations are not set in stone in any way. There are 4 Hawaiian island Alaska destination that they serve with routes that meet Focus City criteria... I only included two, as the other two were debatable. 32.177.227.208 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything likely to be challenged needs to be sourced, and this is no exception. This page on Alaska's website says that the airline has hubs in "Seattle (main hub); Anchorage, Alaska; Los Angeles; Portland, Ore." It says nothing about focus cities. Therefore, AS does not officially have them. We generally go with what the airline says. The airline knows what its hubs/ focus cities are better than anyone else. —Compdude123 01:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article of interest

Here's an article of interest for the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii service livery

It should be noted that The native on the tail of Alaska Airlines aircraft certified to fly to Hawaii wears a leigh, and tropical drinks are complimentary on all flights to and from hawaii. My source is this: http://www.flyertalk.com/the-gate/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/alaska737-800leitail.jpg 216.67.3.61 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not considered as notable, Wikipedia isnt a travel guide. Also the source inst credible. --JetBlast (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The livery should be mentioned because there is an extensive list of different liviries, none of which mention the leigh. 216.67.3.61 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alaska_Airlines&oldid=504998996"