Talk:Nigeria Airways/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 15:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and returning to the lead at the end. Please indicate when issues have been addressed by adding comments or possibly the ✅ template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

History

 * Early years
 * The same day, WAAC Nigeria signed a 15-year agreement... Should be "On the same day,..."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The contract also contemplated that these routes would be operated in a pool agreement. The nature of a pool agreement needs a few words of explanation.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In early 1961, Nigeria became the only owner of the company; This needs to explain how this occured. Details appear in the ref used.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Aimed at replacing the DC-3 aircraft park... What does park mean in this context? Suggest using an alternative word, or clarifying.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That year, the contract with BOAC was revised and a new agreement was signed in April. Beginning a sentence with "That year" does not read well. Suggest "The contract with BOAC was revised and a new agreement was signed in April of the same year."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Employment was 2,191 at March 1970. "Employment" is not suitable here. Suggest "The company employed 2,191 people at March 1970." or similar.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Boeing 707s were leased from Laker Airways and Ethiopian Airlines to fill the capacity shortage left by the crashed aircraft on the Lagos–London route. This gives the impression of a string of crashed aircraft scattered along the route. Add some explanation, so we know if it was one or many crashes.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In October the same year, the Fokker F28 entered the fleet on a lease agreement with Fokker, and later that year the type was ordered. Should be "a Fokker F28", since that aircraft has not previously been introduced, and "later that year one/some/3/a fleet of the type were ordered."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In 1982, a Boeing 747 was leased from Scanair. Suggest "was leased from the Danish charter airline Scanair" to add a bit of context.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Following an accident occurred in November 1983 that involved a Fokker F28... doesn't quite make sense. Suggest "Following an accident involving a Fokker F28 that occurred in November 1983..."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Demise

 * debts that outstripped its revenues virtually from the mid-1980s. Not sure what "virtually" means here. Suggest omitting it, unless it implies something I haven't guessed, in which case, change it for a more suitable word.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While 1,000 jobs had been cut by late 1986, Nigeria ordered the airline to reduce the number of employees —8,500 at the time, with a staff-aircraft ratio of 500:1— even more. Suggest reordering into chronological order, to avoid the awkward parethetical phrase. So, "Although 1,000 jobs had been cut by late 1986, reducing the number of employees to 8,500, or 500 for every aircraft operated, the Nigerian government ordered the airline to make further cuts..." or somesuch.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At April 2000, employment was 4,516. Same issue as before. Suggest rewording.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That year, the International Finance Corporation (IFC)... Suggest "Later that year, ..."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * commissioned by the Nigerian Government Nigerian Government is wikilinked here, but has already been linked in the body of the article. Remove link.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Air France, Lufthansa and Swissair were all considered. It is reasonably obvious where AIr France and Swissair are based, but not Lufthansa, so suggest "Air France, Swissair and the German airline Lufthansa were all considered."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Other option was to liquidate the carrier. Poor grammar. Suggest "Another option..."
 * A fleet comprising 32 aircraft in 1984 gradually depleted to a three-strong at that time. Reads awkwardly, and it is difficult to work out when "that time" was, because the previous timeframe also refers to "that year". Suggest "A fleet which had consisted of 32 aircraft in 1984 had been reduced to just three by 2000."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise, there were various allegations... Likewise is not appropriate here, since what it is introducing is not similar to the previous sentence. Suggest "There were also various allegations..." or similar.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the Nigerian government replied banning British Airways operations'' Suggest "the Nigerian government responded by banning British Airways operations"
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * yet the ground facilities of the folded Nigeria Airways were eventually taken over by Arik Air. Suggest a few words of explanation about Arik Air, to clarify the "yet", which should really be "but".
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Destinations

 * This is a single sentence paragraph, and indeed a single sentence section. Suggest "and Port Harcourt. The international network comprised five routes, to Abidjan ..."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Fleet
 * The airline operated the following aircraft throughout its history. "Throughout" implies that all types were operated all of the time. Suggest "During the course of its history, the airline operated the following types of aircraft." or similar.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

 * The following list includes events that had reported fatalities, carried with the hull-loss of the equipment involved, or both. What does "carried" mean in this context? Expand to clarify.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * when it collided short before touchdown  Should be "shortly before touchdown."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Had its nosegear collapsed after overrunning the wet runway on landing at Ikeja Suggest "Its nosegear collapsed..."
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The hijackers demanded the resignation of the Nigeria's government. Should be "of Nigeria's government" or "of the Nigerian government".
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 01:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I will move on to checking the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Following rewrite

 * I have copyedited the article following your re-write, to resolve some minor issues of spelling and grammar. There are two issues which need some attention.
 * and flights experienced a 32% reduction... Is this a 32% reduction in the number of flights, or a 32% reduction in the number of passengers? Please clarify.
 * when the carrier began codesharing with British Airways... It is not obvious what codesharing is. Please clarify.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead should introduce and summarise the main points of the article. As such, it is a little short for the length of the article. Maybe you could include the fact that it was owned by three parties until 1961, that they have operated 43 different types of aircraft, and that they bought the last Douglas DC-10 ever built. You may spot other themes that need to be mentioned.
 * ✅--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 02:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The formal bit

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * That is the review completed. There are quite a few items to address, but many of them are fairly simple grammatical issues. I will put the article on hold. Do let me know if there is anything which is unclear. You normally have 7 days to fix things, but that is negotiable if you are getting on with the modifications, and need a bit more time. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Honestly, I don't think the nominator will work on the points your raised, but I'll do since I put a lot of effort in expanding this article and really want it to pass the nomination. I'm afraid I don't have time until the next weekend, though. Hope this is fine for you.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 17:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Next weekend is fine. I understand that we are all volunteers here, and that sometimes real life has priority. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It took me two extra weekeneds to carry out the requested modifications but I'm happy to say that we're done with the review. Apart from the points you raised, I managed to substantially expand the article. Hope it is now of your liking.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the substantial expanding of the article has improved it, but has also introduced a couple of extra issues. I have copyedited the text, to deal with some grammar and spelling issues, but there are two items that still need your attention. I have added them to a "Following rewrite" section above. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for correcting my mistakes in the recent expansion. Please note that I went ahead with the minor changes you requested above.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am happy that all of the issues raised have now been addressed, and am pleased to award the article GA status. Thank you for stepping in to address the issues, even though you were not the original nominator. Happy editing! Bob1960evens (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for your time!--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)