Talk:American Airlines/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 01:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well written: Overall, the writing quality is decent. Since there are many reasons for failing this nomination, I won't take the time to comment on bad grammar or unclear sentences, but on criteria 1b. The two tables "revenue passenger miles" and "revenue passenger kilometers" should be combined and use the same values. The short "predecessors" section seems odd and could be removed, since the content appears elsewhere in the "history" section. There are a couple short paragraphs in the "Bankruptcy of AMR Corporation", "Merger with US Airways", "New headquarters" sections that need to be better incorporated into the prose. The "Sponsorship" section should have some more details about the relationship between AA and those teams (years/length, amount of the sponsorship). Regional subsidiary American Eagle is mentioned in a few parts of the article, but a subsection of "Corporate affairs" should be made to explain AA's relationship with AE's operations.

The "Destinations" & "Fleet" section need a summary of the content of the main articles for those topics. The "AAdvantage" and "Accidents and incidents" sections are empty and should also have a summary of the main articles for those topics. See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

The lead is inadequate. It needs to summarize the main parts of the article. In particular, the current lead doesn't really have any information about the history of the airline (a significant part of this article).

Verifiable: Lots of content in this article lacks a reliable source. The article is filled with "citation needed" tags and refimprove tags for sections.

Broad in coverage and Neutral: No issues here except for the sections that need a summary of the main articles for those topics. The only major topic I can think of that is missing from this article is codeshare agreements and any joint ventures (eg. see Delta Air Lines).

Stable: Many back-and-forth edits in past couple of weeks.

Images: Given the other substantial issues with this article, I won't go through every image to verify that license/copyright is ok. Overall, the images are relevant. However, there are lots of images of aircraft...in my opinion, many of them should be removed from the article.

Since there are substantial portions of the article without citations and many problems with content, this article is a long way from GA status. Therefore, I am failing this nomination. AHeneen (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)