Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/British Airways

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

British Airways

[edit]

I did some work on the page a few months ago and have just done a lot of small edits since June 5 2010 on references and style and feel the page is now very close to, if not already at, A-Class standard.

Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've just tried to fix that problem and I think that it's all cleared up now. Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comments Support (with comments)
    • It has always been my understanding that the lead does not need to include references if the material is cited later in the article (see WP:LEADCITE). Most of the information in the lead isn't controversial (such as the name of the company, or when acquisitions occurred), so it doesn't need to be cited in the lead.
    • I find the TOC to be incredibly long. I suggest limiting the depth of the TOC to make it more manageable. See WP:TOC.
    • The history section is very choppy and a bit confusing for me. Kind of related to my TOC comment... I don't see why you need headers between each paragraph. I know there is a separate History of British Airways article, but this main article should still contain some prose.
      • Along the same lines, some of the sections don't make sense to me. Why is the formation of the company grouped with Concorde?
      • Is there a ref for BA becoming the the world's most profitable airline in the 1990s? And why does their slogan have to do with that? Assume good faith for citation hidden behind paywall. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Dirty tricks" and "aftermath of dirty tricks" seems like they should be combined.
    • When did it become a oneworld member?
    • You can put the ref at the end of a sentence, rather than in the middle, for sentences like "British Airways has, with the exception of 29 of its Boeing 777 fleet, equipped its aircraft exclusively with British-made Rolls-Royce engines..." under "Fleet".
    • Is Airline seat the best choice of a "see also" for the cabin section?
    • Do you need a whole subheading for two sentence paragraph? ("Seating policies")
    • Is there a particular reason that BA no longer operates flights to/from Wales and Northern Ireland?
    • Do we know what any of the expanded benefits are available for the Premiere program?
    • I am used to seeing the publication city in book citations, but I don't think it's required.
  • Overall, I think there's a lot of good information in the article, it just needs some cleaning up to get to A-class. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed those problems now except the publication city (I don't even know where to find that) and the references in the intro. However, I don't feel there are too many references and other articles have references in the intro so unless it will actually prevent the article from getting to A-Class standard, I feel they should be kept. Thanks again, Plane Person (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ok, I'm reading through the article again, I'll strike things or make comments as I get to them.
    • An additional comment-- There is a lot of Wikipedia:Citation overkill in this article. For example, you don't need three citations support Concorde's first passenger flight. Or two citations for its last. Or three citations for when a CEO was selected. It's worth using multiple citations for particularly controversial statements, but there's not a lot of controversy in the article. Take a look and see what you can prune back. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another citation comment-- I'm having serious readablility issues with the number of citations in this article. Another example is this line for the marketing section - "It created the influential "Face" commercial for the airline;[83] following the termination of its relationship with BA,[84] it also made an imitation of this commercial for rival Silverjet in 2007.[85]". That one sentence has three citations in it, and they occur every few words. It is very difficult to read that straight through. Take a look at your sources and see what you can cull. In that example, you don't need a separate source for the end of the relationship and the imitation campaign. The source you use for the imitation (85) also discusses the end between BA and the ad company, just use one source when you can. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed all the major problems outlined now, if there are any remaining poorly referenced areas can you let me know. I've tried to correct all the problems listed above so does that mean it's ready for an A-Class rating? Thanks, - Plane Person (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

      • Ok, more citation comments. You don't need to have citations on every sentence either, particularly when each sentence has the same source! A few examples...
        • The second paragraph of "History"-- There are three citations with source [3] in a row... just cite it once at the last instance (e.g., after the "...continuation of the flight to Bahrain" sentence"). You end that same paragraph with two citations for [6]. There is nothi ng in between them, just cite it once at the end.
        • The paragraph starting with "In 1992, British Airways expanded..." -- Each sentence is cited with source [9]... just cite it once at the end of the paragraph.
    • The lead looks much better now. I do have few more comments for you, specifically on the paragraph which begins "British Airways is listed on the.."
      • You can get rid of that lead citation by moving (or copying/rephrasing) that sentence down to the corporate affairs section.
      • The rest of that paragraph is a random collection of facts... why is the Iberia merger listed down there, and not in the second lead paragraph, which is all about mergers?
      • The 35th anniversary comment seems out of place as well.
    • One more lead comment... I know I asked you to remove cites from the lead, but if you leave a quote there ("one of the most bitter and protracted libel actions in aviation history") you need to have a quote.
      • Ok, this one is still active. Per Wikipedia:CITE#When_quoting_someone, if you've got a quote the cite has to go directly after the quote. I know you have three things quoted there... is there any chance there is a single quote you can use that says all you need to say?
-SidewinderX (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I feel I've corrected them now. However, I haven't moved the Iberia merger into 2nd lead paragraph because that is about creation, privatisation and expansion, not directly on mergers which are not a form of expansion. Can you score off everything you feel I've fixed and if you could just point out where the publication city is and what is confusing in the history section. Also, how do you propose to limit the depth of the TOC, I can't think of what headings to cut? Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm still trying to read through your updates, sorry I haven't been scoring things off as quickly as I could have been. The history section is much better now (other than the cite comments I've written above). I'll take another look at the ToC. The publication city is usually listed on the first few pages of the book, right where the publisher is listed. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done some more work on the page and I've fixed the problem with the reasoning for BA not operated outside the London area (cited in the "Operations" section) and I've shortened the ToC, fixed all the citation problems outlined and worked on the lead to fix all those issues. Thanks for all the guidance, Plane Person (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, we're looking much better here! There are still a few instances of citation issues; e.g., in the "loyalty programs" section the first three sentences are each cited with source [115]. You only need to cite it once. Remember, the general guidance is one or two citations per paragraph, not per sentence. I still urge you to go through and look for places where you can eliminate/combine sources. You're allowed to use one source for multiple facts... you don't need a seperate source.
  • Also, I noticed a bunch of the references don't have a "Retrieved" date.
-SidewinderX (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now taken out the publication city from all the references and added "Retrieved" dates on all the references. I think I've sorted out the citation overkill and other citation problems but if I haven't could you point them out please. Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, the refs look pretty consistant now, and you have cleaned up a lot of the citation mess. I still think there are sports to consolidate and clean up (for example, the second to last paragraph in the "Industrial relations" section has 6 references for a 5 sentence paragraph... remember the general guideline is 1 ref per paragraph, not sentence), but I don't think it's problematic enough to oppose this article as A-class. I do think you'll really need to work on that if you want to take it to FA, however. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more work on the referencing and cleared up some issues that jumped out at me. Hopefully I'll have cleared up that Industrial Relations part but I can't take out any more references without cutting out some of the content - do you think that will be necessary? Also, at the soonest possible time (and don't rush if you’re really busy at the moment with the articles your working on) could you score out what I've done, I'm trying to locate the comments that I haven't fixed and at the moment it's quite difficult to know if they have been fixed or not. Thanks again, Plane Person (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, I've tried to strike out all the specific things you've taken care of. I'm leaving the general citation comments unstruck... I support this article for A-class, but I still think those are things you need to look at if you want to go to FA. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that two more editors now need to say that it is A-Class as well? I'll keep working on the article before submitting my FA-Class assessment. Thanks for all your help, couldn't have done it without you, Plane Person (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I believe you need the support of at least three editors for the article to achive A-class. I reccomend poking people at the WP:Aviation and the WP:Aircraft talk pages. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the History is mostly OK, but it misses the 1976 agreement where BA and British Caledonian were not allowed to compete on long-haul routes. I added a sentence and refs from History of British Airways#1970s: Consolidation and Concorde. It may need some rewording. Also, the sentence following this probably needs a reference. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the article is mainly well-balanced and I just have a few observations, but I am not an expert on A-class criteria so I would support promotion but with the following comments:
    • Industrial relations - appears to dwell to much in the present and should really give an overview of issues since 1974 in summary as the detail should be in the history daughter article.
    • Fleet - this has been changes over the months as it originally if I remember tried to give the view that it had always bought Boeing aircraft until the Airbus A320 order. It also has pov statement British Airways has, with the exception of 29 of its Boeing 777 fleet, equipped its aircraft exclusively with British-made Rolls-Royce engines as far as I know RR dont build the engine for the Airbus aircraft. Just my opinion but I think it should cover inherited aircraft then work its way through the major type replacement orders. More space is given to future aircraft then past decisions!
But overall some good work in the article by all involved.MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the comment of RR not building engines for A320 family aircraft: they don't build them directly, but they design/build them through partnership in the International Aero Engines alliance. I'll make the IAE point clearer. I'll see what I can add about past fleet decisions but it seems pretty much as if it has all been covered, if a bit quickly. Also, I'll try and add parts about previous stike action by BA staff into the industrial relations section. Thanks for the comments, Plane Person (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

OK I support promotion - with the engine bit clearer (although the 318s are CFM56 powered!) I dont see anything else that impedes A class. The fleet stuff is OK and improvements can be done later I will see what I can dig up MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done some more work on the industrial relations and fleet section if you want to check them. They may need rewording but I think the content should be better now. Thanks for the support, Plane Person (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Assessment/British_Airways&oldid=863998776"