Talk:Airbus A380/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article has many broken references. Tom B (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- So Link rot is the only reason to do a reassessment here or what? Seems like a weak reason by itself... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- If link rot is the only reason for concern, mentioning this on the talkpage so that something could be done by editors bofore rushing to the GAR system may have resolved the problem entirely. For example, I had (and still have some, but less so) concerns regarding the citing on the Republic F-105 Thunderchief article, by simple posting a "Hey I'm concerned about this" message on WP:Aircraft's talk the problem has been heavily addressed. Just a thought. Kyteto (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- And as if by magic, two-thirds of the dead links have been fixed in under 20 minutes. Kyteto (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- And there are now no dead links at all, not even half an hour's full concentration... Kyteto (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- And as if by magic, two-thirds of the dead links have been fixed in under 20 minutes. Kyteto (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- If link rot is the only reason for concern, mentioning this on the talkpage so that something could be done by editors bofore rushing to the GAR system may have resolved the problem entirely. For example, I had (and still have some, but less so) concerns regarding the citing on the Republic F-105 Thunderchief article, by simple posting a "Hey I'm concerned about this" message on WP:Aircraft's talk the problem has been heavily addressed. Just a thought. Kyteto (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- thanks, i've been editing the article for 8 months now, including fixing links, so wasn't a rush to GAR. This was the most tagged good article on Wikipedia so it seemed a good idea to make sure it was fixed asap and it wasn't obvious all the links could be fixed quickly. feel free to remove the reassessment if everyone is happy. Tom B (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If you read the cited sources, you will see much more negative opinion of the plane and its prospects to ever make enough money to justify the massive investment of private and public funds. The article selectively quotes many of the sources, citing them for select positive opinions while ignoring negative information. This makes it a bad article. The overall tone of the article should at least roughly match the overall tone of the voluminous press and analysis the plane has received. The project started out with most analysts doubting it was a great idea, and that crowd opinion has never changed, and the actual numbers as they have stacked up have been consistent with projections. Even if the "civic and nationalistic boosterism" is to remain in the article as it does reflect actual civic and nationalistic boosterism, still the article should have a 50% counterpoint opinion in the tone. When you read the article start to finish, you should not think "not make money, maybe i heard something about that"; you should think "wow, this NPOV is that this plane may never make money" 68.174.97.122 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)