Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British Airways/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
There are several "reliance on primary sources" orange banners that need to be addressed. There are uncited statements throughout the article, MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, and I think the "Incidents and accidents" section can be incorporated into the article's history or removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello; can you give me some more detail on some of these items. I'll try to make some improvements. Kyteto (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kyteto: The areas with primary source concerns have already been placed. That would be a good area to start. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kyteto do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do, I've been a bit ill recently, it's why my normal article writing has fallen off in recent weeks - finally feeling better for the first time, but it is still not great. I am also having an issue with the primary source problem, in that in several instances they are extremely trivial bits of info, to the point where I'd suspect nobody but BA would ever care to mention them. I see a very strong case for third party sourcing of any claim that is, or remotely is, extraordinary, such as "British Airways was the most profitable airline in the world in the mid 1990s" (a true fact indeed) while a statement like "British Airways has a class of seating called [X]" is... mundane. Does it really need to even be cited at all? WP:Cite had never demanded absolutely everything to have a cite, technically only that which is challenged; so, can I resolved the primary source tag by simply removing them and leaving them uncited? What's the best course of action for the mundanes? Kyteto (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kyteto, GA criterion 2b) requires that all content that could reasonably be challenged be cited inline. I think it fairly likely that travel websites would mention details of BA's seating classes or loyalty programs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Google isn't always complying with that fairly likely... I am trying... Kyteto (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kyteto, GA criterion 2b) requires that all content that could reasonably be challenged be cited inline. I think it fairly likely that travel websites would mention details of BA's seating classes or loyalty programs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do, I've been a bit ill recently, it's why my normal article writing has fallen off in recent weeks - finally feeling better for the first time, but it is still not great. I am also having an issue with the primary source problem, in that in several instances they are extremely trivial bits of info, to the point where I'd suspect nobody but BA would ever care to mention them. I see a very strong case for third party sourcing of any claim that is, or remotely is, extraordinary, such as "British Airways was the most profitable airline in the world in the mid 1990s" (a true fact indeed) while a statement like "British Airways has a class of seating called [X]" is... mundane. Does it really need to even be cited at all? WP:Cite had never demanded absolutely everything to have a cite, technically only that which is challenged; so, can I resolved the primary source tag by simply removing them and leaving them uncited? What's the best course of action for the mundanes? Kyteto (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can I have some specifics of the aspects not related to the areas with primary source concerns please? I have knocked most of those away. Kyteto (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kyteto: There are uncited statements throughout the article. These will need to be resolved before I can recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, all citation needed tags are resolved. Two were recently added in the lead for items that were already in the body (and cited there), while the other had the relevant cite already on its dedicated article that has been brought across. Are there areas that aren't tagged that are of concern? Kyteto (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- (not Z1720) Good work on this thus far, @Kyteto. There are still several unsourced bits, which I've tagged. There are also a few {{Primary source inline}} tags that should be resolved for this to be kept. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The repeated requested resolution of tags, even to the extent of vandalism, has now been implemented. Kyteto (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- (not Z1720) Good work on this thus far, @Kyteto. There are still several unsourced bits, which I've tagged. There are also a few {{Primary source inline}} tags that should be resolved for this to be kept. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, all citation needed tags are resolved. Two were recently added in the lead for items that were already in the body (and cited there), while the other had the relevant cite already on its dedicated article that has been brought across. Are there areas that aren't tagged that are of concern? Kyteto (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kyteto: There are uncited statements throughout the article. These will need to be resolved before I can recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can I have some specifics of the aspects not related to the areas with primary source concerns please? I have knocked most of those away. Kyteto (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.