Wikipedia:Peer review/British Airways/archive1

British Airways

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a good article in a strong position, and I'd like to nominate it for featured status soon. I'd like to have it checked to see that it is ready to be nominated and to see what changes might need to be made.

Thanks, Cloudbound (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review User:Mtaylor848

Opening statement

The statement compares BA to other UK airlines in terms of size (in its various measures), how does this compare to other world/European flag carriers or Oneworld members?
The Conservative government are mentioned but which one and why no link. Perhaps a link to the second Thatcher ministry. Done
'One world, the third largest alliance'; i.e. the smallest Done
'IAG third largest airline', behind whom?
The mention of the Olympic flame isn't noteworthy enough in the context of the airline to be in the opening statement. It should be reserved for the history section. Done

History Broadly speaking this section if well written, to my mind at FA standard, however it leaves me with one question. What became of British Asia Airways. There's a mention of its formation but none of its subsequent history of current status. Nor is there a link. Done

Corporate Affairs is this the best section for the cargo airline?

It's kept in the same section as the other subsidiaries. I'm not sure how well it would work to have it anywhere else, but I'd like to split it out as a separate article. Cloudbound (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations No issues although most detail is on another page. Would the destination map be better placed here? Done

Fleet I can see no issues with this section. It's perhaps one of the more comprehensively written of such sections. Perhaps this could be used as a model for some airline pages where much information is missing.

Marketing Perhaps I'm not best place to review this section, but no issues stand out to me.

Cabins This seems well written to me, I have no information to the contrary.

Incidents and accidents The only point I'll make here is that the picture used, while of the most recent incident is probably not the most notable. What else is available? Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and it's the best image we have. Cloudbound (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I'll make a start on the article tomorrow. Cloudbound (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some updates for you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]