EasyJet

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of this review, was that the article was assessed as C-Class. --Born2flie (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a huge amount to this article myself recently, but would love some feedback to see where it stands at the moment and any ideas to take it forward.

Archived Review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/EasyJet/archive1

Thanks! Wexcan  Talk  01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born2flie

[edit]
Peer review (this checklist is based off of the ((GAList)) example and incorporates some of the Featured article criteria as well)
Lots of work to do here.
  1. Prose
    a. well written: b. comprehensive: c. factually accurate: d. summary style:
    At times, the article seems to be vouching for the airline. Not sure how marketing fits in to the History section.
  2. References
    a. use of inline citations: b. reliable sources: c. No original research:
    WP:CIRCULAR on the second reference. Extensive use of airline company press releases, as well as aviation news media that rely on company press releases for information. This should be reexamined to determine if it contributes to POV in the article.
  3. Style
    a. lead section: b. appropriate structure: c. conforms to WP:MOS:
    The article has a lead section, but it is very spotty and disjointed in organization. Much of the other sections appear this way as well. History barely gets underway before a subsection drags the article in a whole different direction from discussing the apparently short history of the airline.
  4. Controversy
    a. neutral point of view: b. stable, with no edit wars:
    As I said before, the article seems a bit fanboyish in its voice. The article has been steadily edited since the request for review with updates to fleet size, and other information, seemingly as the reports come in.
  5. Graphics
    a. quality: b. image licenses:
    Winglet "logo" image is unnecessary and very low quality. It is placed into the Environment section, but has nothing to do with EcoJet. It's license says that it is a non-free use of a company logo, but the infobox already has the logo displayed. However, the infobox logo lacks a non-free use justification on the image page.
  6. Quality:
    Article classification:
    I would assess this as a Start-class, however the B-class checklist is much more forgiving and rates it as C-class. The article needs better organization, in writing as well as structure. It certainly seems to be tinted on the side of the company, rather than WP:NPOV. Perhaps this is through the extensive use of the airline's press releases as sources. --Born2flie (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More