Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingfisher Airlines/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the artilce for GA in some time, and with all recent additions, woyld like to know what is best suited for the article.
Thanks, — Abhishek Talk 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- PR by AroundTheGlobe
Iv concentrated on the general aspects based on which:
- Items in the lede need not be cited if they are cited later in the article
- When was the airline established? Prose says 2003, category says 2004. All the reference states is the start date in 2005
- A lot of uncited information throughout the article.
- Statistics are uncited and updated only upto 2009 (Operational performance)
- No need for 2 infoboxes
- Quality tag needs to be looked into
- Too many images clustered, refer MoS
- I understand the need for the Kingfisher logo and fair use, however I fail to see the need for the Kingfisher red and King club logos (the latter is also without its usual crown). The red logo also sandwiches information, something that should be avoided
- I would suggest that the awards and achievements section be rewritten either in prose or tabular form.
- There are 3 templates at the bottom of the page, the see also section is not required as its been superseded by templates
Hope this helps! Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Compdude123
You really have a lot of work to do before promoting this to GA-class. Some suggestions/improvements:
- You don't need two infoboxes. Just keep the first infobox,
{{Infobox airline}}and get rid of the second one. Some of the info from the first infobox is duplicated in the second infobox. - Expand the history section. Suggestions:
- There's a section buried at the bottom of the article about the financial crisis. Move it into the history section.
- Financial performance info needs to be cited or removed if no citations can be found.
- Add info about Air Deccan acquisition and its renaming to Kingfisher Red, and add info about the creation of Kingfisher Xpress.
- The history section should at least be as long as Virgin America#History. VX was also founded in 2004, but didn't start flying till 2007.
- Create a corporate affairs section immediately after the history section with info about (and a photo of) the airline's headquarters, it's subsidiaries, and employees. Perhaps the financial performance table which I mentioned earlier could go here. This is done on many other airline articles.
- Prose in the destinations section as well as the text at the beginning of the fleet section need sources.
- The table says that it is "as of 15 August 2010:" Perhaps this could be updated to match when the ref was last updated.
- New aircraft orders section:
- Apparently that section needs to be rewritten. Please do so.
- Sources are needed for some things.
- "Kingfisher's first Airbus A330-200 was widely billed (according to the airline's press release) as the best A330-200 ever built by Airbus.[23]" That seems like mere marketing/PR and does NOT belong in an encyclopedia.
- Is the aircraft delivery table really necessary? I don't think so...
- Services section -- I have a long list of complaints about this one:
- Take the chopping block to the cabin classes section. It looks like a travel guide, which Wikipedia is not. Why not cut/paste that entire section into Wikitravel? That's a great idea!
- Why is the cargo section a subsection of the cabin classes section? You should move it to the aforementioned corporate affairs section.
- IFE section - Shorten, and make less promotional sounding. But first cut and paste to Wikitravel. :)
- Awards and achievements - Change it from a list into prose. And move into corporate affairs section. Also, that entire section relies on a primary source from Kingfisher Airlines.
- In the incidents section there is no need for bullet points since there's (currently) only one incident.
That's all for now. Hope this helps you. In return you should check out Alaska Airlines and comment on my peer review which I started by clicking here. Thanks, Compdude123 06:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)