Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ryanair/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 22:24, 21 January 2007.

Ryanair

Review commentary

Messages left at CGorman, Ireland and Airlines. Sandy (Talk) 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair has deteriorated since its promotion. It contains external jumps (embedded links), mixed referencing styles (some inline links, some cite.php), uncompleted footnotes (URL links only), several cite tags (many more needed), and weasle words ("He is said to have a pugnacious and aggressive management style, using a flat management hierarchy.^{[citation needed]} The largest section of the article is Criticism, raising POV concerns. The article needs to be thoroughly cited, cleaned up, and reviewed for balance. Sandy (Talk) 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandy's nomination is a good summary of what's wrong in the article. LuciferMorgan 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As concerns balance, it needs sources in Ryanair's favour, but good luck in that endeavour. Ryanair has come under fire from tons of critics, while the only sources in their favour have usually been the airline themselves. The article aside, Ryanair's poor reputation is justified. LuciferMorgan 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment I addressed some of the external jumps, which I hope has helped, if only a little. LuciferMorgan 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow! "Disguising fares as surcharges" is one of the worst sections I've ever seen! This article needs rewriting and restructuring. Major effort needed here. And the lack of an active main editor is obvious.--Yannismarou 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to a "duopoly" on London-Ireland in 1985 is not correct. Dan-Air London flew regular scheduled services between London-Gatwick and Cork throughout the mid-eighties.

Move to FARC, almost no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are format and sufficiency of citations (1c), POV (1d). Marskell 09:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per Lucifer. It needs a copy-edit, too. For example, in the first paragraph:
- "However" in the second sentence is a false contrast.
- "It"—spell out the referent here.
- "Over the years"—Not my favourite chronologically precise item. Not encyclopedic.
- "running at remarkable margins by passing its costs directly to its customers."—"Remarkable" is a problem in terms of precision and POV. I'm unsure of the justification provided; ultimately, customers almost always directly pay the costs.
- "praised and criticised in equal measure"—What, exactly equal? Measured how? This is weasley, whereas we need to be taken seriously as a source of solid information. Tony 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.