Talk:Basic economy class/GA2

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a gander at this one! —Collin^{t c} 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Alright, after reading through the article and the talkpage discussion from the previous GA nomination, it's clear that a good deal of work has been done since then to clarify and address the concerns that the previous reviewer had about the page.

1a: The prose is clear and without obvious grammar/spelling errors with one exception: the first sentence of Reception takes a few reads to understand what is being communicated ("Most corporations have blocked basic economy fares because of their limitations.") Can you calrify that this means that corporations have prevented their employees from buying BE fares?
- Done. feminist (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1b: Words to watch, list incorporation, and layout are all fine. Fiction is n/a. I think the lead section would greatly benefit from beginning with a definition of what a basic economy fare is/what it frequently entails (e.g., In air travel, basic economy airfares have replaced standard economy class fares on some airlines as the cheapest option for passengers. Basic economy fares generally come with more restrictions compared to standard economy fares, with frequent restrictions including...) before explaining how it is used (e.g., that it's "charged by a number of airlines for market segmentation").
- Done. feminist (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2a: A nice list of references in a consistent style is presented (with archivelinks! Thank you!) Ref 11 would benefit from the inclusion of the publication's name. A few refs could use accessdates (17, 44) although this is not strictly required for GA passage.
- Done. feminist (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2b: Travel publications and airline websites make up most of this article's sources. Airline websites are primarily used in reference to airlines' specific policies which is a valid use of them. The only source I'm questionable on is Runway Girl Network which is the sole source for an entire paragraph. Is this a RS?
- Runway Girl Network is a specialist source covering airline passenger experience. I previously inquired about the source's reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#Runway Girl. Seth Miller, who wrote the RGN article, meets WP:USEBYOTHERS: Washington Post, The Hill, ABC News, CTV News. feminist (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2c: One concern from the previous GA nom was improper synthesis of various airlines' policies of BE fares (with phrases like "generally" to describe what is generally the case for these fares). These have largely been removed since then but a few persist in the lead; these can be dealt with by addressing the lead concern in 1b. No other OR concerns.
- I have removed "Passengers traveling in basic economy are generally not allowed to change or cancel tickets or select seats for free." However, "More restrictions compared to standard economy fares" is uncontroversial enough and is something documented by most sources when discussing basic economy in a (US) nationwide context. feminist (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2d: The phrase "warnings about basic economy restrictions presented during the sales process" appears in both the Runway Girl source and the article; could this be rephrased?
- Done. feminist (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3a: Addresses the main aspects of the topic (its definition, history, variability from airline to airline, and reception). I couldn't find significant areas not touched on by this article while searching for BE independently.
3b: The airline-by-airline By market section works because it combines both the rollouts of the various BE fares and what their restrictions are. I would be concerned if these sections were exclusively highlighting the restrictions by airline but as it stands, I do not think they provide unnecessary detail and offer useful summaries.
4: No concerns here. The article offers and explanation for why airlines would offer this fare type as well as a reception from critics and passengers.
5: No stability concerns.
6a: Images are free and tagged as such.
6b: Images are not purely illustrative.

Overall, the article's in pretty good shape for GA status. The items to address with 1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, and 2d are fairly manageable. Pinging feminist. Let me know if you have any questions. Kindly —Collin^{t c} 19:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: Let me know if my fixes are enough. Thanks for the review. feminist (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: Your contributions address the concerns I had raised and I believe the article now qualifies as a Good one! I note that you took out any specifics of what restrictions BE fares include from the lead which was not my intent–I think that's useful info to include, I had only hoped it might be qualified a little differently. Maybe something like "They typically replace standard economy class fares as the cheapest option for passengers and generally come with more restrictions compared to standard economy fares. Restrictions vary by airline but may include x, y, or z." It's not crucial to passing GA though. Congrats! —Collin^{t c} 15:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]