Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qantas/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Qantas
I'm nominating this article for featured article because Qantas is Australia's national airline that is apart of the 2nd largest international airline alliance of the world. The article has something around 80 references and documents the airline past and present acuatly. This aritcle is better than some past FA's. Aflumpire 03:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Notability of article is not one of the criteria for FA. Notability is a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles about non-notable subjects should be nominated for deletion. Regards, 129.215.191.74 10:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 129, I think you placed this comment on the wrong nomination since Quantas is clearly notable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mgm, I think you placed your comment on the wrong nomination since Aflumpire is clearly nominating partly on notability and 129 is entirely correct that notability is not a criteria for FA. pschemp | talk 18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify here, i'm not nominating purely on notability. I think that this article has been around for a long time and many people have put a lot of hours into this artice and I think that it is time for an Australian airline to be a featured article. Not just an airline, it's the airline that everyone knows when they see the kangaroo. It meets all the criteria, everyone has been wanting this for a long time so why not now?? Aflumpire 06:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Support As nominator. Meets all criteria. Aflumpire 06:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC) ''Comment: um .. this doesn't really mean much, and clutters up the page. Your nomination embodies your support, and it's not a vote-count.'' Tony   (talk)  02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm afraid that I don't have time to do an exhaustive review, but I offer the following constructive comments on a few things that jump out at me...
 * The lead needs more. See WP:LEAD. Leads are supposed to summarise the article that follows, whereas yours introduces facts that don't appear anywhere else in the article.
 * There are a number of citation needed tags that need sorting.
 * Some very short sections. Can they be expanded or amalgamated into larger sections?
 * Following on from the above, the structure is a little haphazard. Inflight internet connectivity (which subject appears to carry over into the next section as well), inflight mobile phone trial, and inflight entertainment, are all separate sections, not even next to each other in the article, which would presumably sit quite happily in a single 'inflight entertainment section'. Promotional activities and Logos have separate sections under History, though only brief one liners of the early logos actually qualify for this description (maybe they can be dispersed about the appropiate history sub headings). Frequent flyer and club sections might also combine into a single passenger benefits section. The incidents and accidents, sex discrimination and extortion sections might come under a single 'incidents' section (the latter two certainly don't need their own higher level sections as far as I can tell).
 * Do the various lists really add anything to the article? It seems to me that they verge on simple directories of information and don't really help your cause in terms of engaging prose per the FA criteria. I'm not sure, for example, that you need to say anything more than frequent flyer partnerships exist with x number of airlines and y number of car rental firms, if that. The sponsorships lists and aboriginal sections might be better served as a narrative under a single 'Community' section - not sure that every single one has to be listed. Do we really need to know every club lounge location and codeshare partner? The two line list under catering seems particularly unnecessary.
 * I think you might be pushing it with the fair use images. The club and frequent flyer logos don't really add to the article and don't seem to me to be necessary for identification, nor are they providing critical commentary. The frequent flyer credit cards also don't really do anything to illustrate the article, and for a one liner section on inflight entertanment do you really need the fair use image of the magazine cover?
 * --FactotEm 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Note I have given everybody until November 2 to object to any changes. Aflumpire 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note sure what you mean by it. The comments above need action to pass this article as a FA. If you don't it won't pass, so I can't see the logic of waiting 2/3 days. Mark83 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't set deadlines here, Aflumpire. BTW, I think you invite vandalism on your talk page by going on and on about it. Has it done any good? (There's a typo right at the top.) Tony   (talk)  02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * As per above, unnecessary lists are a problem. The bullet points after "Margaret Jackson (Chairman) said the revised proposal provided an attractive premium for Qantas shareholders, being" and the other bullet points in that section break up the article badly, that info would be much better as prose.
 * Having a section just for "Qantas has a range of in-flight entertainment, including movies, TV programs, news, music and a magazine called The Australian Way." is strange - either merge that info into a larger section or expand on the one sentence.
 * "Airline Partners Australia takeover bid" -- many facts and figures in that section that are unreferenced.
 * Many one or two sentence paragraphs.
 * 5th iteration of the Qantas kangaroo logo since 2007 > 5th iteration of the Qantas kangaroo logo used since 2007
 * Many refs not formatted correctly and one url link (Sex discrimination controversy section) that needs converted to a reference.
 * Refs 1 and 62 are the same.
 * Painting of Qantas Boeing 737 in ext. links -- nice and all, but seems a bit random.
 * Other ext links: board - consider if that should be discussed in article. Fleet, Fleet Age covered in article. Qantas Fatal Accident List should be moved to Qantas fatal accidents.
 * Overlinking, e.g. planes linked multiple times.Mark83 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 4 sentences for a lead isn't good enough. WP:LEAD says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Mark83 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose.
 * Lead section too small
 * There's a proposed merge on one of the sections
 * The history sections are stubby. As the national airline and one of the oldest airlines in the world, the history section needs to be filled out or made into summary style links to deeper articles.
 * There are no photos or description of the vast majority of the fleet types, the terminals (especially the newly refurbished "home base" in Sydney), internal arrangements or airport lounge.

sorry, I think this could well be a GA but not an FA just yet. Witty Lama 16:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, 2a, 2 (MOS compliance). I think this should be withdrawn and worked on a lot.
 * 2a—Please read WP's advice on leads. Just in the tiny portion of text there, "fifth-best" requires a hyphen when before the noun it qualifies, and why clutter with "New South Wales"? The last sentence contains two quite different statements: clumsy to read.
 * See MOS on images: please don't squeeze text in between right- and left-side images. It looks bad on my screen.
 * Thought of coming up with a currency and time-based conversion of your Australian pound figure? Means nothing, otherwise.
 * "Eighty-four year old outback pioneer"—I'm afraid it's a quadruple hyphenated item, unless you reword.
 * "The airline operated air mail services subsidised by the Australian government, linking railheads in western Queensland." Year range and reference?
 * The section titles are unwieldy. What about: "Flying boats and war (1934–45)" rather than "Flying boats and war — 1934 to 1945"? That's how people often do it. Tony   (talk)  02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.