Wikipedia:Peer review/Biman Bangladesh Airlines/archive1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Biman Bangladesh Airlines[edit]

This GA article has been substantially expanded taking into account comments made on the project's A-class assessment page. I would like to receive wider input to push it on its way to becoming an FAC. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]

Y If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]

None Available - uses airline logo per project guidelines.

Y Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 feet, use 100 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 feet.^[?]

Y When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).

Y Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled), ageing (B) (American: aging), routing (A) (British: routeing), curb (A) (British: kerb).

Y All numbers with units of measures should have conversions from the metric system to the U.S. customary units. Templates available here.

Y Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

Preston McConkie (a member of the League of Copyeditors) has done a first pass through the article. → AA ^(talk) — 23:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketgirl completed copyedit followed by proofread by Gprince007. → AA ^(talk) — 11:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, → AA ^(talk) — 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Dwaipayan[edit]

Y No need to give all the destinations. Get linked to Biman Bangladesh Airlines destinations and remove the list. Structurally otherwise good. --05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Y In history, "...with the gift fom the Bangladesh Air Force of a Douglas DC-3 that ..."; in the next paragraph, "...Biman started its journey with a gifted vintage Dakota and Douglas DC-3, which crashed a month later during a test flight." Are these the same Douglas DC-3? If yes, why the two sentences are so much separated?

Should now flow correctly. → AA ^(talk) — 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y "Douglas DC-10s and Airbus A310s were added to its fleet during the 1980s and 1990s, but the airline suffers an increasing rate of mechanical failures" This sentence does not read well. The two statements of the sentences seem not connected.

Removed sentence altogether as superfluous in History section (covered in detail in Fleet→History). → AA ^(talk) — 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y "These acted as a replacement for the BAe ATPs" This sentence suddenly talks about BAe ATPS that were so far unknown to the reader. Which BAe ATPs? Have that been mentioned previously? --14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This should flow correctly now - moved back to Fleet history section. → AA ^(talk) — 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y A "Livery" section? The El Al has it, so do some other airline articles. --14:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIRLINES#Structure shows that Livery should be included in the history section (which is the case for this article). There is not enough information available to create a specific sub-section. I know that the livery has undergone changes but could find no sources discussing it. → AA ^(talk) — 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wel, since the guidelines suggest it to be included in History section, we do not need a separate Livery section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Also, any frequent flyer programmes? Any remarkable thing on in-flight entertainment or refreshment? Any publication/magazine of the airline? --14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an in-flight magazine, "Diganto" (also [1]). Frequent flyer is described on Biman's website, so could be incorporated. I could say a thing or two about their entertainment and refreshments (having flown them a few times) but unfortunately, WP:NOR prevents me from doing so :) I'll see if anything is available. Brilliant suggestions!! → AA ^(talk) — 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jatree? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added new "Services" section with this info. → AA ^(talk) — 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put together a bit more information on the services at User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 3. May be they'll come to some help in expanding the existing information. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From John Carter[edit]

Y No references in first two paragraphs of "History" section. At least one citation per paragraph is generally sought, two or more if possible. Not a big problem, but maybe enough to eventually withhold FA status. --18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Refs added. → AA ^(talk) — 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Aditya[edit]

Y The history section needs some expansion, it jumps from the birth to recent times a bit too fast. Were not there anything of note that happened in the time between? --05:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything notable for that period (or anything for that matter). Most of the article is sourced from news articles which thanks to the Internet has made it possible to write articles like this. But for the pre-Internet era, there's nothing available that I could find. → AA ^(talk) — 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Aditya for getting hold of Jatree (which I unexpectedly found a reference to in a CIA factbook link) and expanding the history section. It flows much better now. → AA ^(talk) — 08:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y The second paragraph in the reorganized history section shows some inconsistency about the first Biman aircrafts. I didn't notice it before I reorganized that part. I guess, it'd be easy to fix and get a bit streamlined. --03:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...was there a need to remove the fleet history section? I think the fleet history (which is a notable element of Biman's operations) needs to be kept separate from it's corporate history. → AA ^(talk) — 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it back to the original structuring to address Dwaipayan's concerns but open to discussion on the intention of the merge as mentioned above. → AA ^(talk) — 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for two different history sections? I'd suggest (and I tried that too) a single history section that include most of the history, if not all, leaving the fleet section to deal with the current fleet with a bit of background and expansion/upgradation measures. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better if the level 2 History section covers the corporate history and not focus too much on other historical aspects which have their own section. In particular, the fleet history is better covered together with other fleet related topics under the named section. I can see the fleet history expanding as further progress is made at modernising the fleet in Biman. → AA ^(talk) — 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if the two history sections remain apart, I'd like to draw attention to a big discrepancy in facts. The first history section says - "Biman commenced operations with two Fokker F27 aircraft flying passengers to Chittagong and Sylhet from its base in Dhaka. Soon after a Boeing 707, chartered from British Caledonian, joined the airline's fleet, allowing Biman to begin international flights." But, the second history section says - "Biman started its journey with a gifted vintage Dakota and Douglas DC-3, which crashed a month later during a test flight." - and then moves onto the 1980s. What constituted Biman's original fleet? Fokkers and Caledonians or Dakotas and DC-3s? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have posted some material on the article talk page to shed light on the original fleet. Hope it's useful. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think there's any contradiction between the two sources - just the way they are representing the facts. I'll have a go at trying to put a uniform view in the article. → AA ^(talk) — 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I guess, with time even I could figure out a way to straighten it. But, for an innocent gazer of facts or a student who has come for quick gathering of information it could've very well become confusing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Is it possible to incorporate a few lines on the new management, especially the structure of the current management? May be with that inclusion, and a bit on the on initial management structure, it can become a level 2 section, not a level 3 part of the History section.--07:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be some sources for this - I'll look into it. → AA ^(talk) — 12:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion of the management section from level 3 to level 2 was very appropriate. It could be helped further by incorporating a few bits on the current management (in structure, if not in names), otherwise it lacks completeness big time.

Not sure about big time, but it certainly would be useful to provide the management structure. Haven't found anything yet on the net that goes into this level of detail, but still looking. → AA ^(talk) — 08:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Is it possible to incorporate a few bits on the evolving laws for this government agency over the time into the history section, may be distributed along the time flow? --07:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't come across any that provide this level of detail. → AA ^(talk) — 12:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put together a short evolutionary overview of the laws (which may be coupled to the original Biman Act, which is a part of the national constitution) at User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 3. It may help a bit. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From AA[edit]

Y How about removing the 2nd paragraph and the 2nd part of the first sentence from the History section. This would remove mention of fleet from the history section ensuring this only deals with corporate history. The Fleet->History section covers this anyway.

Reducing redundancy? Wonderful idea. My only question is - why two different history sections? I have checking airline articles, and this structure doesn't seem to be a necessity. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm not succeeding in getting my thoughts across - apologies for that but let me try again. I believe the Fleet section should discuss everything related to the fleet and History should be confined to company history (with maybe an overview of history from the other sections - Destination, Fleet, etc.). Posssibly, the problem is starting the Fleet section with a level 3 heading called History which I think can be solved by just removing the heading. I've jiggled it about a bit so let me know what you think of the current layout. → AA ^(talk) — 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just remembered that you suggested the current structure yourself a while back when the article looked like this. I think this layout does fit in better. → AA ^(talk) — 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, shit! Why didn't I think of that before! You just removed the second history header, right? Incorporating an overview of historical facts from other parts is an wonderful idea again. Just keep it very brief, otherwise someone would surely spot it for redundancy. And, oh, I remembered that suggestion made by quite a while back, but things have evolved much ever since. (well, I do feel a bit like a jackass taking my words back, hahaha). One more thing, I strongly feel that the article should go into FAC as soon as the PR goes silent for more than a week. It's very ready now, notwithstanding the length of the intro section. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - just removed the 3rd level History header under Fleet. Will submit for FAC as suggested. Hopefully, one or two other passes of copyedit/proofread can be done - we'll see how it goes. Thanks again for all your help! → AA ^(talk) — 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Need to incorporate some info on Biman Cargo. --11:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put together a piece at User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 3, may be that should help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited from there into the article. More to come. → AA ^(talk) — 08:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise the currency used in the article. I think converting the BDTs to USDs would be appropriate since this is not a "country-specific" article (per WP:$). --08:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Which conversion rate would be useful in doing that? Current market prices or the price of the years associated? The former would be misleading, the later would be difficult to establish. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will have a hard time in FAC if this is not addressed and we need to see the best method for doing so. Maybe worth looking at going the other way then USDs → BDT. → AA ^(talk) — 08:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Arman Aziz[edit]

Y Create articles (may be stubs to start with) for Biman subsidiaries. If they are not notable enough then remove the redlinks from the subsidiaries section (infobox and body of article) --06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Done by Aditya

Y The incident and accidents section should be merged with the history. Even if a separate section is retained it should be converted into prose style from a list style. --09:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This incidents and accidents section is in accordance with the structure suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines, a collaboration to standardize and develop airline related articles. This structure is widely used by airline articles including the featured article El Al Israel Airlines. Besides, it doesn't really represent a list, as each incident/accident is described in prose, the resemblance to a list is that each has its own paragraph, which are in agreement with WP:LAYOUT guideline on paragraphs. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Arman Aziz 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.