Talk:Pakistan International Airlines/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is very short for an article this length. It should be at least twice the length, if not three-fold. The lead does not summarize the article, for instance it lacks coverage of the fleet and incidents.
 * National carrier is a weasel word. It does actually not mean anything. If an airline is state-owned, state it as such. If it holds a domestic monopoly, state it as such. If it is the largest airline in a country, state it as such.✅
 * Avoid bold and incorrect capitalization in the infobox.
 * Concerning ownership, there is internal non-consistency between the header (stating the airline is 87% state owned), and the privatization section, that states fully owned.
 * It is incorrect to state that they were blacklisted in '27' EU states, because a EU ban on an airline also effects the European Economic Area and Swtizerland, who have common avation regulation with EU.
 * The 'destinations' section is completely unhelpfull. Instead of listing those destinations that will begin soon, write a prose section describing the range of destinations offered (domestic, international, intercontinental, frequency etc).
 * The 'financial performance' section should instead be converted into prose that describes the airlines performance, and lists key operational and financial events and operations.
 * Do not put company names in italics.
 * The 'code share' section is confusing, because it does not indicate which party is actually flying, and which is piggybacking. Instead include this as prose in the destinations section.
 * Avoid bold in tables, except for the header.
 * Retired fleet should contain prose, and the main link is red.
 * 'Marketing and sponsorships' should be rewritten to prose.
 * 'Achievements and recognitions' is just a bunch of trivia, which should be avoided. Incorporate this into the other sections.
 * Avoid bolding the incidents in the section.
 * The 'see also' section could be to just a single entry (transport in Pakistan).
 * Further reading is for literature, not blog entries. Incorporate the best links into external, and cut it down to a bare minimum. Only include content that is not covered in the article and the references (which normally is limited to only the official site, which should instead be in the infobox). While 'external links' sections are permitted, they are discouraged.
 * The sections are scattered around, and are not in any logical order. For instance, try to keep business together, operations together, and history to itself. As mentioned, many of the sections are very bare, and could easily be removed.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Large parts of the article are completely unreferenced; notably 'history', 'financial performance', 'cargo operations' and 'achievements and recognitions'.
 * There are fact tags.
 * Hardly any of the references are formatted correctly. Consider using cite templates. More at WP:Citing sources.
 * Airliners.net is not a reliable source.
 * 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:
 * I am failing the article without doing a full review. Though there has been put much good work into the article, there is still a lot of work before it reaches GA. Once the comments have been addressed, consider a peer review before renomination for GA, since there are many aspects I have not even looked at. The best of luck with the continuation. Arsenikk (talk)  11:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * I am failing the article without doing a full review. Though there has been put much good work into the article, there is still a lot of work before it reaches GA. Once the comments have been addressed, consider a peer review before renomination for GA, since there are many aspects I have not even looked at. The best of luck with the continuation. Arsenikk (talk)  11:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am failing the article without doing a full review. Though there has been put much good work into the article, there is still a lot of work before it reaches GA. Once the comments have been addressed, consider a peer review before renomination for GA, since there are many aspects I have not even looked at. The best of luck with the continuation. Arsenikk (talk)  11:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)