Talk:Alaska Airlines/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC) I told Compdude123 I would add my comments into the peer review of the article some months ago. Given that I never did so, I have now the opportunity to redeem myself with this review.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No dead links so far.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Original research found here. See below. Original research removed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Everything is ok.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article passed

FYI: I have fixed the last dead link left in this article. Since I couldn't find an archived version I replaced it with another website that said the same info. —Compdude¹²³ 04:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

History

Early years (1932-1945)

I'll start my review with this first sub-section. At this stage, I'm not checking whether the information is reliably backed by the sources, but will do it soon.

• Given that Wikipedia does not require a minimum number of inline citations for any sentence, information contained in a paragraph that comes from a single source can be put at the end of that paragraph. However, it is not clear where the contents of the second paragraph —consisting of several sentences— comes from. I therefore suggest splitting references 9 and 10 (current version) so as to have each sentence properly referenced. Furthermore, there's an awkward sentence in parenthesis in the middle of the paragraph that can be properly integrated into either the previous sentence or the following one. Much the same consideration can be given to the last paragraph.

 Done – For the second paragraph, I moved the ATW ref (formerly ref 10) up to the part about McGee getting into the mining business. I got rid of the parentheses as well. As for the last paragraph, both refs back up everything in the paragraph so they're fine how they are. —Compdude¹²³ 02:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding third and fifth paragraphs, I suggest moving the inline citations to the end of each sentence (or paragraph if applicable), bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done —Compdude¹²³ 02:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done I have fixed the references in the last paragraph so as to follow the numbering for the inline citations. It is currently backed by two references, but I still don't know which of them is supporting which sentence (Let me tell you that I haven't checked yet whether the references in the section are properly backed by the sources provided). Is it that the paragraph is supported by both inline citations appearing at its end? Please clarify. In the meantime, I'll jump to the comments for the next sub-section.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Both refs cover all of the info in that paragraph, so they are fine how they are. —Compdude¹²³ 22:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Expansion after WWII (1945–1949)

• The first sentence of this section is unsourced, while the second one contains two inline citations. Again, I'll ask to split that two references so as to have both sentences properly sourced.

The first citation covers both sentences, but the the second one covers the second sentence. To make that more clear, I copied the first citation to the first sentence. —Compdude¹²³ 23:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to have “Worldwide charter flights” as a fourth-level heading? In my opinion, wiping it out gives more continuity to the text.

Removed subheading. I agree that it's unnecessary. —Compdude¹²³ 23:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I additionally took the freedom to make some minor improvements to the grammar of this sub-section in order to avoid the repetition of words, wikilinked, etc. Furthermore, I archived some of the references in order to avoid dead links in the future.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This subsection is also done. I will continue with the review for the next sub-sections below.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

New leadership (1950s)

• The first paragraph is unsourced.

 Done – Added source. —Compdude¹²³ 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please clarify the following: “That year also saw the CAB award Alaska Airlines with the long-coveted routes from Anchorage and Fairbanks, in Alaska, to Seattle and Portland in the continental United States; this would become permanent in 1957.” I think this needs a rewording, as the main idea is not clear.

 Done – Reworded sentence to read like this: “In 1951, the CAB awarded Alaska Airlines with a temporary certificate allowing them to operate on routes from the Alaskan cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks to Seattle and Portland in the contiguous United States; this award would become permanent in 1957.” —Compdude¹²³ 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have made some minor changes to the sub-section in order to improve the grammar (avoiding the repetition of the world airline, among other things), and also added a wikilink to the 1950s decade.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The jet age (1960s)

• Nothing to comment.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reference number 14 states Head Office: 2320 Sixth Av., Seattle, Washington, USA. Nothing is said there about that place being located in Belltown. This is original research unless a proper source is provided supporting that that particular address is in Belltown. The very same assertion can be found in the article for that Seattle's neighbourhood, for which I suspect it was copied as is from that article. Apart from that, is this relevant to the article? I suggest removal.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 Removed this sentence entirely; I agree that it's irrelevant and unnecessary. —Compdude¹²³ 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey are you going to finish reviewing this article? Looking forward to additional comments. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 04:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will. I'm not plenty of time these days, so please be patient.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Economic hardship (1970s)

• It's hard to find a connection between the first sentence of the paragraph and the following one that deals with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (I guess it, though, but it's preferable to have it explicitly stated in the article). I think an additional sentence explaining the reasons that led to the grounding of cargo aircraft will give more readability to the entire sub-section.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I rephrased the first few sentences of that paragraph. It now reads like this: "However, the airline was not in good financial shape at that time. Like much of the airline industry, Alaska Airlines was hit with rising fuel and operating costs and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Revenues were significantly reduced when work on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was delayed. The airline's cargo aircraft had played a key role in building the pipeline, but now sat idle." I also rephrased parts of the first paragraph, too. —Compdude¹²³

Post-deregulation expansion (1978–1990)

• I made some improvements to the grammar and aesthetics, but the sub-section looks fine the way it is. Please check the changes out, as probably there's even a better way to present this information. You're kindly invited to modify any of my changes for the sake of tidiness. In particular, is it correct to state that both Horizon Air and Alaska Airlines are subsidiaries of Alaska Air Group since the former was acquired by the latter?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Horizon Air remained separate from Alaska Airlines, not its parent company Alaska Air Group. I also made some other spelling and grammar fixes to that section. —Compdude¹²³ 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New competition, new technologies (1990s)

• Half of the sub-section is unsourced, as the first five paragraphs have no references supporting them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed – The info is from ref 10. To make that more clear, I added more citations to that source at the end of each paragraph. —Compdude¹²³ 23:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the paragraph that claims the airline's MD-80 fleet peaked at approximately 45 in 1996: would it be possible to state the exact number of these aircraft by that time?

 Done The airline had a total of 44 MD-80s at that time, according to the ref. —Compdude¹²³ 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• In the following paragraph: the airline added another destination in Russia. Which was it?

I don't know; the ref doesn't say. —Compdude¹²³ 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Removed – it's a minor detail that doesn't really need to be included anyway. —Compdude¹²³ 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's a reference at the middle of this paragraph (<ref name="alaska air group history" />) backing the acquisition of new Boeing 737s. Why is this reference not placed at the end of the corresponding sentence? Is it not supporting the fact that the airline ordered both the Boeing 737-700 and the -900? By the way, it would be of encyclopedic value to say how many of these aircraft were actually ordered, if possible.

 Doing... I found this Seattle Times article and I will include the info once I get the chance. —Compdude¹²³ 01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done – I added that source to the article and also added the number of aircraft ordered. —Compdude¹²³ 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I amalgamated some of the paragraphs to give more continuity to the reading.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Introducing flights across the USA (2000s)

• As per WP:CITEFOOT, I moved references some references to the end of corresponding sentence, and tidied-up the sub-section a bit.
• The introduction of services to Dallas is unsourced, as are the Bellingham, Washington to Hawaii ones. As for the flights to Hawaii, all the cities mentioned were served from Portland, OR, Sacramento, CA, Oakland, CA, and Bellingham, WA? Please clarify.

 Removed mention of Dallas (couldn't find source) as well as Bellingham (not needed). Also removed was the sentence listing all the cities served in Hawaii and cities on mainland USA where service to Hawaii is offered. It seems like a travel guide. I just listed the initial service to Hawaii. —Compdude¹²³ 23:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• To mark which occasion? I placed a {{which}} tag in the text, please clarify.

 Done – Seemed pretty obvious to me, but I clarified it anyway. The Spirit of Seattle was to mark the airline's transition to an all-Boeing fleet. —Compdude¹²³ 00:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• The airline planned to introduced more 737 Combi aircraft towards the end of 2007. Did it do so or not?

Not sure. I wondered the same thing myself but was unable to find any press release regarding additional combi aircraft being introduced. So I have now removed the information. —Compdude¹²³ 00:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• The route map used a reference for Minneapolis–St. Paul, Austin, and the other destinations in the sentence cannot be used, as it does not provide the dates specified in the text.

 Done – Replaced route map ref with actual press releases from the airline's website. —Compdude¹²³ 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• The last paragraph says that the airline planned to start flights between San Jose, CA, and Kahuliu and Kona in Hawaii, but it only started a service between Sacramento (not San Jose) and Kahului. Why?

 Fixed – it should say that they announced the service from Sacramento would begin on the specified date; it's more consistent with the ref. —Compdude¹²³ 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Also, the “hub and spoke” sentence is unsourced.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 Removed sentence. —Compdude¹²³ 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that you're nearly finished reviewing the history section and I've addressed your concerns, (sorry for taking so long with this section) I'm looking forward to additional review of the article and your stamp of GA approval. —Compdude¹²³ 00:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just pointing out that you seemed to have forgotten about the 2010s section. Any critique for that section? Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 05:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually missed it. Will add it below in a jiffy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

2010s

• Is it necessary to state that the airline announced a service and also to claim that this service began? In my opinion, to state that the flights started is enough. Apart from that, the only reference provided deals with a future event, but there's no source supporting the actual commencement of these flights.

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Something similar occurs in the next paragraph. It's claimed that Horizon aircraft would be painted in Alaska's decor. Have they started painting at least one of Horizons' aircraft in Alaska Airline's livery? You may say that an image is included, but I'm afraid that's not enough evidence, according to WP:V.

 Not done – Yes, a lot of their aircraft are painted in the Eskimo livery. I live in Seattle and see Horizon's aircraft fly over my house everyday, and I don't see any that are painted in the old livery. There may be a few painted in that old livery still. I couldn't find any press release mentioning that all of Horizon's aircraft are in the new livery, though. —Compdude¹²³ 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• What “ER” means for a Boeing 737-900 (or any other aircraft) is not needed here. Such details can be found at the corresponding aircraft article, so I've removed it and linked the aircraft model.

 Fixed It actually didn't say what "ER" stood for on the Boeing 737 Next Generation article, but I have explained that there. —Compdude¹²³ 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Made some minor copyedit to the paragraph dealing with profits for 2010.
• The paragraph mentioning Facebook does not give due weight to those events that are important to the history of the airline, as the use of biofuel flights really are. I strongly suggest removing the Facebook sentence. I find it completely irrelevant, as most airlines currently have their Facebook profile.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 Removed facebook stuff. —Compdude¹²³ 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• At least a source supporting that the disruptions and new routes mentioned in the last paragraph effectively occurred is also needed. In summary, an announcement that an event will take place is not enough to support it actually occurred. This section needs additional references supporting the occurrence of the events stated. Two good sites for sources are www.centreforaviation.com and atwonline.com.

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed – Added press releases that talk about commencement of services. —Compdude¹²³ 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Corporate affairs

I archived all the references included in the section.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Employees

• According to the source provided, the airline has 2,774 flight attendants, slightly below the 2,800 disclosed in the article. I corrected these figures.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines Foundation

• Everything is ok. Just added a missing space.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Alaska Air Cargo

• Made a minor correction regarding the version of 737s flown by the airline.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• The reference provided says nothing about the aforementioned versions of 737s. Please provided a source for this claim. I've tagged the sentence needing sourcing. Nevertheless, I believe this information belongs in the fleet section. Otherwise, a comment should be added pointing out that belly capacity is used on regular passenger flights.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 Removed mention of aircraft. In its place I mentioned that it has the most extensive cargo operation on the West coast of any passenger airline. —Compdude¹²³ 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Destinations

• Put the image below the {{Main}} template.
• The first paragraph has two dead links. I have marked one of them, the other was already marked.

 Fixed – With the first ref in that paragraph, the link to the archived page was messed up, but I've fixed that. For the second dead link I just removed that sentence because it was unnecessary.

• The suspension of services to Rusia following the 1998 Russian financial crisis is unsourced.

 Not done – I've had no luck at finding a source for this information. But I don't really want to remove it though. :| —Compdude¹²³ 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done! I now added a source, with thanks to John Carter (talk · contribs) who provided me with one. You do have to have a HighBeam account to view the whole source, but that's not an issue here. —Compdude¹²³ 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• The third paragraph is unsourced.

 Already done, but I just forgot to mark it as such. —Compdude¹²³ 22:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• The fourth reference announces a future event. As above, the actual occurrence needs sourcing.

 Not done – Again, I couldn't find a source. Sorry. —Compdude¹²³ 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's put a {{fact}} tag to both this an the above unsourced statements for the time being. Not so serious, as long as no additional unsourced statements show up.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Added an introductory sentence to the list of codeshare partners
• The last reference doesn't say when both airlines's flights started being part of oneworld Global Explorer fares. A citation is required for that date.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done – Source found. —Compdude¹²³ 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fleet

Current fleet

• Made minor changes to comply with WP:ORDINAL
• I have archived the source dealing with the fleet table. Please check that the figures are in accordance with this source, that was updated since the last edit at June 2012.
  • Last time I checked, the source hasn't been updated since June 2012. Since I keep a very close eye on this article, I check that source frequently. —Compdude¹²³ 04:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've marked with {{cn-span}} a paragraph that needs sourcing.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done – Source found. —Compdude¹²³ 19:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Fleet history

• Made some improvements to the grammar to avoid repetitions, added wikilinks, comply with WP:ORDINAL, etc.
• Much of the content regarding the MD-80s is included in the “History” section. I recommend removal from here.
  • Don't want to remove it entirely, so I'm just going to shorten it. —Compdude¹²³ 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• The incorporation of MD-82s via the acquisition of Jet America Airlines is not mentioned in <ref name="md80 retired" />. It is therefore unsourced, as is also in Post-deregulation expansion (1978–1990). Both entries were tagged with {{fact}}.

 Not done – Tried to look for a source but failed. —Compdude¹²³ 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that many newspaper websites charge money in order to view the full text of articles in their archives. The best that I've found are statements like "Alaska will keep all of Jet America Airlines' MD-80 aircraft" but it never says that the aircraft are MD-82s. —Compdude¹²³ 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What about adding {{subscription required}} to that references? No problem in doing that, as long as few of them are included. Are you a subscriber of any of the references you are mentioning?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No and that's the problem I'm having. I might try Highbeam research's website when I get the chance. —Compdude¹²³ 05:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done (sort of) – The best I could find was that they acquired MD-80s, so I modified the text to just say that. Also fixed it in the 1980s section, and added info that Jet America was originally operated as a separate airline, but then merged into Alaska. —Compdude¹²³ 19:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• The Boeing press release included in the last paragraph has been archived. It does not mention many of the claims it is supposed to support for the first sentence, i.e. that the 737-200QCs were able to accomodate 111 passengers in an all-passenger configuration or that the cargo pallets were called "igloos". As for the second sentence of the paragraph, the reference provided briefly describes the 737-200C that was donated to a museum, and nothing is said about replacing them with 737-400 due to fuel inefficiencies. I suggest checking the content of the entire paragraph to comply with the information the two references do include.

 Doing... I got back from a weeklong vacation, and am going on another vacation this weekend. Other than that I have other things in real life that are more important for me to spend time on right now. I will try and fill in the referencing gaps soon. —Compdude¹²³ 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done —Compdude¹²³ 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the tables showing the evolution of the fleet across the years can be merged into a single table that includes all the content currently split in two. This is just a suggestion, and it doesn't have to be implemented. Just consider this comment for future FA nomination.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not do that, just because it would take up more space vertically, and there would be wasted space on the sides of the table. I don't want it to look like this, where so much space is wasted. —Compdude¹²³ 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to sound like a pain, but when will all the comments be added in? We're at the four-month mark for this review now, generally they should only take a couple weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

More comments will be added once my latest ones are addressed. Can you please point out where the review guidelines say that there is a deadline for finishing a review?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted. On the time issue, it's less a set in stone issue and more one of common courtesy. If I were to write an article and know it would be reviewed for four months I'd just skip the process. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, is it being reviewed against review guidelines and if so why, that has nothing to do with reviewing GAN's its a disambig page? Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles mentions a lightweight review and a four-month review that is still unfinished does not appear to be lightweight. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not checking every little detail, but I'm certainly checking for accuracy and verifiability, apart from prose and aesthetics. That's the way I do things, and that's the way I work here at Wikipedia. Sorry for being rude, but I don't see you as a prolific contributor to this particular article; actually, the history page counts no edits from you. I will continue with my review tomorrow. And thanks for pointing out my linking to a disambiguation page: WP:RGA was to be the correct link.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really mind that it's taking so long, but it'd be nice for the reviewing to go faster. I'm busy in real life right now, and don't have much time to address Jetstreamer's concerns. —Compdude¹²³ 04:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Livery

• The first paragraph is unsourced.

 Done – Ref addded. —Compdude¹²³ 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Despite <ref name="AlaskaFleet"> takes the reader to the basic 737-900 fleet information (and not to information related to the whole fleet as expected), it is used several times as a source for special liveries. I suggest adding a new reference for each special livery, if available (as is actually the case). However, doing this does not provide with much of the information stated for each special livery. Just two examples: this reference provides neither the registraton of the aircraft wearing the Spirit of Disneyland II livery nor that it replaced the one worn by a retired 747-400; also, this other reference doesn't back up the fact that the aircraft was painted for the Disneyland Resort's 50th anniversary.

 Done – Better references added. —Compdude¹²³ 02:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding N792AS, I wouldn't regard a picture from Airliners.net as reliable. It seems that the problem with tail numbers is widespread here, so I suggest the removal of all of them from the article. After all, is it necessary to disclose the tail numbers?

 Done – Tail numbers and Airliners.net reference removed. —Compdude¹²³ 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Three references have been archived (one of them being <ref name="Spirit of Seattle">).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am really looking forward to your completion of this review and getting the article up to GA status! I hate to be impatient with you and I know you have a life (at least I hope you do :D) outside Wikipedia, but this has taken far too long. Can you please finish up the review sooner rather than later? Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 03:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is on the right track to GA status. You guessed well, I'm pretty busy these days. I will continue reviewing tomorrow, time permitting, and hope will finish this review.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Services

On-board meals and beverages

• The first reference of this sub-section takes the reader to the airline's “Food & Beverage service” info, but nothing is said there about a product named Northern Bites or the date it was launched. Furthermore, the “Picnic Packs” mentioned in the article appears in this url, and not in the one included. Is suggest explicitly including every different url needed to support the first paragraph, as the reader should not navigate the only url provided to discover the stuff presented in the page for theirself.

 Fixed, now everything in this section is suitably referenced. —Compdude¹²³ 04:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've archived and moved the Starbucks reference. The last sentence of the paragraph including it is unsupported by that source, and has been marked as unsourced accordingly.

The last paragraph actually was supported by the reference. —Compdude¹²³ 04:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. It was fine the way it was.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On-board entertainment

• I could find nothing related to WAEA in <ref name=alaska-awards />

 Removed <ref name=alaska-awards />. —Compdude¹²³ 04:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Two references have been archived.
• The last paragraph was relocated.
• A dead link was marked.

 Removed the dead link, since there was a ref there already. —Compdude¹²³ 04:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

On-board internet access

• Where in reference <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/splash.do?execution=e1s1 |title=Gogo Inflight Internet |publisher=Gogoinflight.com |date=November 18, 2010 |accessdate=August 22, 2011| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20110711104155/http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/splash.do?execution=e1s1| archivedate= 11 July 2011 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> does Alaska Airlines come into play?

 Fixed by replacing with a reference to the actual press release on the website. —Compdude¹²³ 05:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I cannot find anything related to Row44 in the reference provided for that sentence. Furthermore, please check the tense of the entire first paragraph.

 Removed that ref; completely irrelevant to the text. —Compdude¹²³ 16:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• An unsourced claim has been marked with a {{fact}} tag.

 Removed sentence with the unsourced claim. —Compdude¹²³ 16:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Three references have been archived.

Lounge

• I could not verify the claim that Delta Sky Club members have access to Alaska's Board Room lounges, so it has been tagged with {{FV}}. The corresponding reference has been archived.

 Removed —Compdude¹²³ 23:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the end of this review as I intended to be, but at least another entire section has been passed through the process.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what's the status here? Reviews are supposed to take only 2 weeks. This is quickly approaching 5 months. --Rschen7754 06:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Supposed to take two weeks? Can you please point out where is that written at? My time is limited these days. I will continue with the review as soon as I have the time to do so.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the Good article criteria. You can also put the article "on hold" or ask for a second opinion. The review process itself should take, at most, two weeks." WP:GAN. --Rschen7754 17:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite taking a look at WP:GAN several times, I completely missed that. Thanks for poiting it out. I've finished my review today.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Mileage Plan

• The section includes too much information, so detailed that it looks like a travel guide. I suggest some cleanup so that it includes the essential information related to the mileage plan of the company and their partners. In my opinion, the first paragraph is enough.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done – Shortened this section to two paragraphs. —Compdude¹²³ 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Club 49

• Same comment as above. Is it that important to know the number of free checked baggage for an encyclopedia's article? Please do some cleanup to this sub-section as well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done —Compdude¹²³ 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents

• Suggest changing the name of the section to ″Accidents and incidents″

 Done —Compdude¹²³ 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• It would be great for the section to have an introduction, including a summary of the number of fatalities for all the deadly events, disclosing the number of aircraft that were written off, etc.

 Done —Compdude¹²³ 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• The {{further}} at the top of the section has been removed, as all the articles within that template are wikilinked in their corresponding entries.
• Can the text put in quotations marks for some of the occurrences be written in prose?

 Not done – Not sure how else to write the text in a way that wouldn't look like I was copying it. —Compdude¹²³ 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Made a WP:ORDINAL fix
• Cleaned up the references and used {{ASN accident}} where appropriate.
• A reference have been archived.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I will put the article on hold until my latest comments are addressed. Almost five months later, this concludes the review.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yay, we're done!!! Finally!! —Compdude¹²³ 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is now in condition to be promoted. There are still some issues, but they can be addressed later if the article is eventually nominated for FA status. Congratulations!--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo! Finally, it's done: my first Good article! So glad that this is done, and I'm sure this will be the first of many good articles I promote. Let me know if you want me to do a GA review in the future, I'd be happy to do so. I promise I won't take so long. —Compdude¹²³ 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)