Talk:EasyJet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check the things I have fixed and move them inside the hidden table underneath. Thank you Mephiston999 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk)

Comments:

Done The lead is a bit scattered. While it is about the correct length, most of the paragraphs are too short and should be merged, perhaps into three.
Done The mention of the headquarter is too detailed for the lead. While mentioning that the head office is at Luton is fine further down in the lead, leave out which hangar it is in. It means nothing unless the reader has intricate knowledge of Luton Airport. Also, use the full term 'London Luton Airport' so the reader knows where Luton actually is.
Done 'United Kingdom-based' should have a hyphen in it.
Done 'Company' is redundant to 'airline', since it is presumed that any airline is a company.
Done There should be a comma before 'but' in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Done The second paragraph seems to talk more about Ryanair than EasyJet. Also, it fails to explain how EasyJet "is second". Last I checked, it was not the worlds second-largest airline. Perhaps you mean second-largest low-cost carrier in Europe?
Done The sentences "It has 4,859 employees (at September 2007)." and "It is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index." are both too short and should be merged.
Done The sentence (and paragraph) "The company holds a United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Type A Operating Licence permitting it to carry passengers, cargo and mail on aircraft with 20 or more seats." is completely out of place. It is presumed that any commercial airline hods necessary permits to operate the aircraft they own, and sticking in a very technical detail like this in the lead serves no purpose. Simply delete it from the article.
Done It would be nice to have a mention of which aircraft the company (at least currently) operates.
Done The claim "EasyJet is well known throughout the United Kingdom" is very vague; if such information is included, it must be factual (for instance, most known etc.) and be referenced
Done Slogans are not in italics.
Done Swap the order of "operated initially" in the first paragraph of 'history'.
Done The start of the history is fine, but then suddenly nothing has happened between 1992 and 2000.
Done The shorthand "€325m" should instead be spelled out to "€325 million". Subsequent mentions can use the format "€410 M".
Done Comma after "In November 2005". The sentence it is in needs a reference.
Done The 'Marketing' section needs more references, and among other things has a {{fact}} tag.
Done Don't put url links into the prose.
Done Comma after "In 2001, EasyJet opened its base at London Gatwick Airport".
Again, paragraphs are too short in the 'marketing' section.
Done There is massive overlinking of Ryanair and Southwest.
Under 'strategy', there is a high focus on Ryanair. However, instead of trying to define EasyJet on how it differs from Ryanair, try to define EasyJet in absolute terms, and then make a discussion that it, for instance, uses more central airports than Ryanair. However, it could, for instance, be mentioned that this is the same strategy as Norwegian Air Shuttle uses.
The whole 'Enviornment' section should be removed. First, it seems more like a marketing stunt than anything else, and if they were serious about it, they would need a whole different apparatus than they do. Second, the use of the term 'environment' is highly POV. Of course a single or two-sentence mention of EcoJet is fully allowed.
Done Of all the airports, why is the number of aircraft based at Doncaster-Sheffield mentioned?
Done The sentence "EasyJet briefly operated..." needs at least two commas and could perhaps be two sentences.
Done In "Milan Malpensa-Olbia", there should be an endash (see WP:DASH).
Again, 'destinations' as too many short paragraphs. I would also have though most of this was better placed in the history section.
Done Do not use contractions such as "havn't". Instead, use "have not".
I would like to have seen a prose introduction to the 'fleet' section, which would incorporate much of the stray information.
I find the second table under 'fleet' rather confusing. It would probably be a lot better to just convert the key information to prose.
Done Belfast Airport is linked in two sentences after each other, and also later in the same paragraph.
'Fleet history' should contain the number of each aircraft which has been operated.
Done Avoid having to section headers with the same name (for accessibility).
It is not necessary with a whole section about the headquarters. Find somewhere else to stick it.
Done 'Design and Adverting Agencies' should not be capitalized.
Done Similarly, 'Marketing Director' and 'Business Manager', in the way they are being used here, should not be capitalized.
Done Emdashes are not to be spaced.
Done After "using the web site" there should be a semicolon.
Avoid use of phrases such as "now".
Done Avoid bold text in the body; use bold exclusively in the lead.
Done Ref 3 is from 1998, and is now 12 years old. While suitable for describing history, it cannot be used to cite the menu.
While does the article imply that only low-cost carriers contribute to global warming.
Don't use a hyphen for punctuation, but instead an endash. See WP:DASH.
Done Don't capitalize "Air Passenger Duty" and leave the acronym outside the link.
What in all of earth is 'Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato'?
There seems to be no mention of how EasyJet is part of the "Easy" brand.
Done Ref 5: Can't use Wikipedia as a reference.
Several of the links are bare and lack author/publisher, date and/or accessdate.
Is Jones' book used for referencing. In which case, inline citations should be used to indicate page numbers.
Done The two last external links are inappropriate. Since the official site occurs in the infobox, remove the whole "external links" section.

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Reviewer

I hope nobody minds me butting in uninvited, but I noticed that this page was under a GA review and took a quick look over. This will be the first time I've formally taken part in reviewing a GA article, and as such Arsenikk is the senior editor in such matters. I thought that it may be helpful if I pointed out a few things that showed up from my perspective; such as that the references could use some attention as Arsenikk picked up.

All the references of the article should have listed: a URL (if it is an internet resource), a title, a publisher, and a date. (use dates of publishment where possible, however a date of access is suitable if this is not known)
Adding in author's names to references is encouraged where they are used in the original source, but this is only advisory rather that strict policy. This should prove helpeful to lifting the standard of the article.

There are several statements that could use citation.

History

"Its current slogan is "Come on, let's fly!", a reflection on the airline's cheeky and cheerful image. EasyJet has previously styled itself as "the web's favourite airline", a play on the British Airways slogan "the world's favourite airline"." Both sentences could use seperate citing despite how obvious they are; similar to how they were over on the British Airways article.

Strategy

"One main difference EasyJet and Ryanair have from Southwest is they both fly a young fleet of aircraft. Southwest have a fleet age of 14.1 years where as easyjet's fleet age is just 3.4 years." Could use a cite.

Environment

"Therefore, it is unclear whether EasyJet still pursues its construction, or whether the original purpose of project was to put aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus under pressure to construct an airliner that serves the need of EasyJet." This sounds dangerously close to original research; so it should be cited to a news agency or a formal source that holds a similar belief that this was a ploy.

Destinations

"EasyJet briefly operated routes to the Republic of Ireland, Ryanair's home ground, one of the top destinations from the UK in terms of passenger numbers each year, but dropped them after stiff competition with Ryanair." needs a cite
"At the base at Dortmund half of the offered destinations were canceled on 26 October 2008 due to inefficiencies and poor levels of revenue" needs a cite.
"Activities at Rome-Fiumicino have been expanded in November 2009 with the opening of a further European base" needs a cite.
"At one time in 1997, EasyJet had proposals to fly from London Luton to Oslo Sandefjord Airport" needs a cite.

Controversy

"The airlines has been accused, amongst other no frills carriers, of contributing to global warming through the high carbon emissions of aircraft." should be cited, preferrable via the mainstream media to demonstrate the wider context.

A good job has already been done in bringing this article up to scratch, I am sure that this will shortly satisfy GA level quality. The final decision rests with Arsenikk, but feel free to talk to me for help or assistance. I've been on the other side of several GAs to sharpen them up where other editors were initally lazy (I'm good at digging up references and recognising opportunities where they can be easily recovered, hence they are a pet bug of mine). I'll be around if I am desired, hope this has been useful. Kyteto (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comments

There are still a number of issues with the article:

The purpose of a history section it to present a chronology of events. This is so the reader can see the connection between events. It doesn't help to provide years, because no reader can keep track of them. Instead, the reader is forced to jump between sections or merely guess at what events occur as a reaction to what. What is currently under "business and finances", "marketing", "expansion and acquisition", "ecojet" and part of "fleet" should be made into a single chronology.
There are lots of references that are absent, and others that are improperly formatted
There is a picture of a 737-200, but I cannot see any mention of such aircraft in the prose.
It is no longer appropriate with a controversy section (it is regarded as inherently POV). Instead, historical controversies should be moved to the appropriate place in the history section, while others should be in other appropriate sections.
A separate section for head office is inappropriate. Instead, merge it into the "operations" section, which by the way is missing.
The Airbus A319 orders should be converted to prose
Neither of the incidents are notable enough for inclusion, see WP:AIRCRASH. A lot a young airlines have never had any neither fatal or hull-loss incidents, so don't "force the issue".
The article has at least two instances of greenwashing. No matter how you turn around the issue, air travel is inherently a large contributor of global warming. Weasel words are being used on both sides of the discussion, and there is a clear POV in throughout the prose. While this is an issue related to all airlines, taking up the issue in each airline article is probably not appropriate, and in this article, there is what I would consider a POV towards presenting easyJet as environmentally friendly (it may be so compared to other airlines, but not compared to other modes of transport or that easyJet is increasing the demand for air travel). The issue is complex and belongs at a "different level" than every article about airlines. Also please split the "environment" section into the "service" and "history" sections.
There are so many one-sentence paragraphs.
There is a book about easyJet sited under "bibliography", but no in-line use of references to it. If there is such a book available, a more extensive history section is expected.
It is very difficult to get by without an "operations" section. Part of this is covered in the "business" under history, partially under "strategy" and
As I commented above, the "strategy" section is too concerned about comparing with Ryanair and too little concerned about defining in absolute terms. It almost presumes the reader has an intimate knowledge of Ryanair.

The article is still on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than a week has passed and no attempt to amend the article according to the comments above have been made, so I am failing the nomination. Once all instances have been seen to, feel free to re-nominate the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easyjet letter

Here is a source: A letter about possible revocation of Easy brand. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]