Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Druk Air

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.

Druk Air

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is almost ready to go thru the GA/FA process, but would like comments on the article.

Thanks,

Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mukkakukaku

Looking at the automatic link checking tools, you've got a circular redirect in the article (a link to Drukair, which redirects to Druk Air.) Also you've got several disambig page links -- Bumthang, Council of Ministers, Eurocopter Ecureuil, Five-year plan, Gaya, Load factor, Overland, Paro -- which you'll need to fix before you get this through FA.

3 of your references are broken/dead (404): Waiting for Druk Air, Flying dragon, and Drukair winter schedule.

The direct link to "Tourism Development in Bhutan: Tensions between Tradition and Modernity" doesn't work, but the other information is ok; consider removing the link to the PDF and just leaving the link to the journal itself.

The link for reference "Bhutan puts its flag on the world's air map" has a strange file extension that nether I nor my computer recognize, so I can't check for reliability.

The "Fleet" subsection is so short it's funny. Two aircraft, both of the same type, is not enough to support a table, so that needs to go. And unless there's more to talk about -- ex. they've just ordered six boeings that are going to be delivered (just made that up, but something like that) -- this section should be absorbed by another section.

The "Into the future" heading sounds very unencyclopedic.

The article is full of places where the ndash ({{ndash}}, – ) is used instead of a hyphen. Ex. "mid – 1980s" is wrong; it's one one, hypenated like so: "mid-1980s," with no spaces in the middle. En-dashes and em-dashes should be used like like semicolons — that is, like I just used here.

Some overlinking. Ex. "committee" in the history section should either link to an article about the specific committee being talked about, or nothing at all; definitely not to committee.

The copious in-sentence referencing makes it very hard to read (IMO). Is there a reason it's done this way as opposed to the end of the sentence? In my experience, in-sentence references are usually used when a part of a sentence is such that it requires additional referencing in addition to the referencing at the end of the sentence. An unrelated and completely made-up example: "During the course of the interview, Smith discussed the American war on terrorism, admitted to an extramarital homosexual affair,[12][14][35] and announced his candidacy for the gubernatorial post.[23][24][36]"

Is the company BAE Systems or BAe systems? References are inconsistent within the article.

The lead is very short. It also introduces information not mentioned elsewhere in the article. (Namely the fact that "druk" is its namesake -- this needs to be incorporated into the article elsewhere and sourced. Yes, it's self evident from Druk Air, but it needs sourcing. How does the casual reader not know that it wasn't named after some city named Druk, or some person named Druk, or the king... and so on?)

In the lead, the second paragraph starts "Taking its name from Druk, the airline was founded..." Who/what is druk? Following the link, I now know it's the funky dragon, but that should be mentioned at least. Ex. "Taking its name from Druk, a "thunder dragon" from Bhutanese mythology,..."

This sentence from the lead: "As the only airline flying into Bhutan, Druk Air has become a lifeline with the outside world for the Bhutanese people, as well as supporting emerging inbound tourism and export markets." (emphasis added) sounds very WP:NPOV, the "lifeline" bit at least. I'm sure there are at least some Bhutanese who couldn't care less and/or who remain unaffected by the existence of the airline. And the same sentence is repeated, word-for-word later on. The lead should summarize, not repeat.

The lead mention nothing about the fleet. See also: WP:LEAD.

If you do take this to FA review, the (very nitpicky) reviewers will get on your case about having a space between punctuation and a reference. Ex. "Blah blah blah. [13]" versus "Blah blah blah.[13]"

The paragraph about Airbus and the memorandum of understanding is very confusing, especially to someone (like me) who has only ever taken a basic introductory economics course. It needs to mention, at least as an appositive, what a memorandum of understanding is, as well as a soft loan. Heck, the entire paragraph confuses me and even after reading the articles about all the economic terms, I'm still not sure what exactly happened.

There is a paragraph in the section on future development written in the future tense about work that will start in October 2009... this needs to be updated, as I think that's passed.

The File:Druk Air old logo.png image has a cleanup banner, which would quick-fail a GA on the article.

Other than the issues mentioned previously, the article should be ready for GA review. Ix-nay on the FA, though. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.