Talk:British Airways/GA2

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
This is quite a long article and it appears to be well referenced. From several admittedly skippy read throughs and some word searches, I've come to the conclusion that the article is quite "lite" in some sections.

What is there, is probably about GA-level, so I will now carry out a more detailed review. As is my preference I am leaving the WP:Lead until last. As this is a long article, the Initial review is likely to take me a few day's. Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Formation and early years -
 * Ref 8 is a web site called "Wired", but the acknowledged source is Wikipedia, so this is not a WP:Verified source.
 * The statement about the Concorde service(s) is unnecessarily vague: the destination(s) from the UK should be given. Note: Concorde flights were controversial at the time, so this was well documented in the real world (but not it seems in this article).

...stopping at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have dealt with both issues raised. Bad reference ditched for another one, and Concorde has been made into a proper subsection (it is noteworthy enough in my opinion, I've mostly moved content from the "Current Aircraft" section to make it, as well as gone over it a dozen times on a ref hunt. Looking forward to more suggestions, and thanks for taking this on. Kyteto (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article has been extensively rewritten in the last fortnight or so and I'm lead to believe that it is now in a stable state, I'll start a new Initial review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial review (new version of article)
This is quite a long article and it appears to be well referenced. From several admittedly skippy read throughs and some word searches, I've come to the conclusion that the article is fairly "lite" in some sections, but it does appear to be well referenced.

Overall the article, is probably about GA-level, so I will now carry out a more detailed review. As is my preference I am leaving the WP:Lead until last. As this is a long article, the Initial review is likely to take me a few day's. Pyrotec (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I'm only concentrating on "problems".


 * History -
 * Formation and early years -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC). Information is given about BOAC (and it is named in full), but there is nothing about BEA; the final paragraph then discusses the merger between BOAC & BEA.


 * Thought I'd help GA nominator Kyteto for these suggestions today...the BEA ref was apparently moved to History of British Airways; I've brought it back (named in full).


 * Operation of Concorde -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC). The final sentence of the first paragraph is unnecessarily vague and might not be verifiable: there is no date of purchase for Concordes, ref 19 confirms "prestige", ref 20 does not appear to confirm anything stated in that sentence; and ref 21 (only the summary is free) dated April 1984 headlines "profit" presummably on the London-Bahrain route.


 * Sentence rewritten; prestige confirmed; followed by corporate accounts (confirmed in ref), and first profits (the ref states 'profits' for the 'first time' ever - first flight made 8 years prior, on the London to Bahrain route).


 * Privatisation -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC) There is no verification that the initial share issue was 11 times oversubscribed.


 * Added book reference to 9 times oversubscribed. SynergyStar (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Privatisation and/or Changes, subsidiaries and growth -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC). The Cost cutting and rationalisation subsection discusses the move to London Heathrow Terminal 5 yet there is no mention of London Heathrow Terminal 4 in this or the following subsections. From the mid 1980s onwards Terminal 4 was almost entirely used by BA.


 * Reference added to Privatisation section, on the T4 focus.


 * Changes, subsidiaries and growth - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 31, which is used in the first sentence, states that BA took a 25% stake in Qantas and the sale of the stake is mentioned in Cost cutting and rationalisation, but this purchase is absent from this subsection.
 * The following subsection, Cost cutting and rationalisation, discusses the sale of BA Connect; but the creation of BA Connect, by buying competitors such as Brymon Airways, is absent from this section.
 * I've taken care of these, with extra statements and references added. Kyteto (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Destinations - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement "is one of only eight airlines that fly to all six inhabited continents" aught to have a citation.


 * Reference added for 7 such airlines.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fleet -
 * Current fleet - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph makes the statement "a condition was placed on the company that it used Rolls-Royce power for the new jets", this is not directly and/or fully confirmed by reference 74.


 * The 707-400 with RR engines was BOAC, so I removed that, and left in place BA's preference for RR, in general, as the reference states. SynergyStar (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Aircraft operated - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This subsection is unreferenced.


 * References added, although some recent dates are not covered by BA's history pages. SynergyStar (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

....I'm stopping at this point for today. The Initial review is almost finished (apart from Operations onwards and WP:Lead). I will then check corrective actions; and, hopefully, we can complete this review in the next day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Operations -
 * Could do with a citation for the Heathrow T3 operations.


 * Thanks for the review, references added for T3. SynergyStar (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * Appears to be a fairly reasonable Introduction and summary of the main points within the article.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article and thanks for all the recent hard working in bringing this article up to GA-standard. I'm happy to announce that it is now officially GA-standard. Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On behalf of the article's editors, thank you for the review and comments! SynergyStar (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)