Talk:Reasons for the failure of British Caledonian

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Defunct Airlines task force.

Concern

I'm concerned that this article contains a large amount of original research. It seems to make a lot of assertions that are at many times dubious yet it provides absolutely no citations establishing where those ideas came from and if they are credible. -Drdisque 22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out the references cited in the article, you'll find where the information has been sourced. I also don't agree with your claim that it contains a lot of original research, nor that there are lots of dubious statements. On the contrary, in my opinion it is a well-researched and well-documented, as well as well-balanced article. Pimpom123 16:26, 12 November 2007 (GMT)

I agree that the article could be improved. However, in my opinion there are sufficient citations. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that all statements in that article have been adequately referenced. Hence, I totally disagree that these statements are unsourced. I have therefore removed the second tag. Pimpom123 11:33, 11 December 2007 (GMT)

Dude, you responded to yourself. 24.34.183.7 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added another reference linking to Flight International's on-line archives explaining the restrictive nature of the 1970s Anglo-French bilateral air treaty and how this affected the launch of BCal's Gatwick-Paris flights in November 1971.ttd_369 12:48, 05 February 2008 (GMT)

Have added a further reference linking to Flight International's on-line archives elaborating BOAC/BA's opposition to the CAA licensing BCal to compete with the Corporation on London-Singapore in 1972, seeking to influence the UK and Singapore governments' decision on designating BCal as the second UK flag carrier on that route.ttd_369 10:22, 07 February 2008 (GMT)

Reorganising the article

Have now completed reorganising this sub-article - incl. the linked main article - a bit over the recent Bank Holiday week-end. Hope the result makes for better reading. Another way to reduce the complete article's size is to use the same referencing system as in the Air Europe article as well as to "tighten" it a bit further or, alternatively, to subsume it into a newly created, separate sub-article for the period when thinks at BCal began going downhill (ie sections entitled Unexpected reversal of fortunes to British Airways wins the day - to be found in the sub-article entitled British Caledonian in the 1980s). Maybe, other Wikipedians with an interest in aviation articles could help with this. This sub-article (and the linked main article as well) contain[s] a lot of detailed information that I personally consider very informative and therefore valuable. So, someone who knows how to tighten it further without simply deleting all that info, without changing the meaning completely (by leaving just a few disjointed sentences) and without making spelling or grammatical mistakes should preferably do this. Aviator369 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]