This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
The "Financial scandal and police investigation" section has serious neutrality issues. The scandal remains a significant part of the subject's history but at the moment the section is nowhere near the impartial tone required under NPOV. It currently seems to be focused on being a dramatic retelling of the expense scandals in lurid detail, rather than an impartial summary of the events.
There are also several issues with unreferenced claims (Kelly Long meeting Mazza as a water ski instructor, the entire "Web of Companies" subsection). RA0808talkcontribs 05:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the content of the section is okay, but the tone needs "toning down". - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The water-ski angle was mentioned by all four Toronto daily papers. I think the point is not to be lurid, but to indicate a lack of qualifications. It was previously covered in the other citations, which I thought would be sufficient, but is now explicitly referenced.
Nepotism seems quite clear, the CEO, Chairman, and HR VP all had friends or relatives hired.
The web of companies was well documented in the auditor general's special report, which was previously referenced elsewhere in the article, but which is now explicitly referenced.
If I may point out the 27 September edit by Soldacre -- Soldacre has no previous edits that I could find.Feldercarb (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soldacre: As was said above, the content is not the issue. It is the tone. RA0808talkcontribs 21:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
specifically? Feldercarb (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
perhaps a "scandal" is "scandalous" because the details are "lurid"? Feldercarb (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
can someone please add what is the correct pronunciation? Different or the same as of "orange"? Thank you Vladivosta (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]