Talk:Basic economy class/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 12:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Will review this soon. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: Having read through this, I have some fundamental concerns that I can't get away from in relation to the article's purpose, but i'll lead on to that. In terms of identified issues on the lead prose, the following stand out:

• "..and to encourage passengers to upgrade to standard economy fares." - How could it have been introduced to encourage passengers to upgrade to a travel class (standard economy) which itself was the entry-level class prior to the "basic economy" introduction? This doesn't make sense, as the suggestion is that airlines wanted the then-entry level class to become one that is upgraded to, which could only be facilitated by the introduction of a new class, but this is not implied or clear from the prose.
• ..and are the last to board and leave the aircraft." - only 1 airline's section has this restriction noted in the prose, but the initial sentence structure and the use of "typically" implies this is common practice
• The lead itself is very short and I guess that's because the article doesn't have much factual prose to use for this section

The sections for each airline are reasonably well written, however I sense it may be a little futile to examine this with any degree of thoroughness as I am concerned that the article in its current state is not really one that could be considered for GA class. My view is that this article is not much more than an airline comparison page, bordering on marketing, although the prose gives weight to both positive and negative aspects of each airline's restrictions so could not be considered as being purely marketing in that sense.

The term "basic economy" is essentially a marketing term for a service marketed by major airlines (US airlines as noted in the article) and I am struggling to justify how it could be worth inclusion on wikipedia. As it stands, I can't consider the article as suitable to be graded as a GA, even if it were exceptionally well referenced and written. In saying that, there is clearly a movement among transport operators to compete with ultra-low-cost offerings and a google search for "super economy" returns what is essentially the same type of package for rail travel. Likewise, the concept of a lower-graded economy class seems to exist outside of the US too, such as British Airways, yet this article gives no weight towards the suggestion that this may be an international marketing ploy.

At this stage, I feel the article is leaning too far towards being promotional, insufficiently encyclopedic and lacking representation of a worldwide view, nor does it take into account similar concepts across other transport sectors.

If I felt there was any scope for short-term fixing or correction I would have put this on hold, and indeed I am more than willing to work through lengthy reviews and article rebuilds if I feel it's appropriate, but I don't at this time. You may want to consider stripping this back, such as condensing the overly worded sections for each US airline and instead focus more towards worldwide representation and similar concepts across other transport sectors. If this is achieved, i'd be willing to consider another review as it would hopefully be better justified as an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)