Talk:Kenya Airways/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Please remove the "See also" section or list a related article. Done.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	"In-flight entertainment", "History", "Fleet" section have some uncited statements, please fix them. Fixed.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Citation is needed for the fact that the company operated the Douglas DC-8 Super seventies. Done. Thanks to MilborneOne for this clarification.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Need a secondary source for the fact that "In March 2006, Kenya Airways won ... fifth time in seven years." Didn't find a source for this yet, so I hid the paragraph including this claim, along with another unsupported one. The article has now no unsourced statements.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] "The alliance provides Kenya ... network and passenger facilities." needs a citation. Done.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Various problems are with the external links; see this. Done.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] There is one more cn template, fix it. Fixed.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Needs some details about the future plans of the company, as in Vietnam Airlines. The only source including some (vague) information regarding the future plans of the company is the airline's website itself. If written, “future plans” would turn out to be pretty speculative, falling into crystal balling. I believe not writing anything at all concerning the matter is the better choice.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Will wait for sometime so that the issues can be fixed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply] Article passed. Congrats! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed. I hope the article is now of your liking. Kind regards.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]