Wikipedia:Featured article review/Biman Bangladesh Airlines/archive1


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

The article was removed by YellowMonkey 02:27, 10 April 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: AA, WikiProject Bangladesh, WikiProject Airlines

This article no longer meets the FA criteria, so I am nominating it for review. My main concerns are the undue weight and overall size of the article (1b and 4), and the article needs more prose to meet FA criteria. There are also a number of style issues and the prose is far from the quality expected at FA. Some of the issues are:
 * done There are two diambiguation links ('bird flu' and 'BAA')
 * done There are two dead links
 * done More images should be added (there are historic and non-redundant images available at Commons)
 * done Sentences two through four (first paragraph of the the lead) all start with 'It'.
 * done Sentences such as "...at its peak Biman operated flights to 29 international destinations as far away as New York – John F. Kennedy International Airport (New York City) in the west and Tokyo – Narita in the east..."
 * done Use of in-prose slashes ("cancellations/delays")
 * done Acronyms for EU and US at first mention, while linking to the two.
 * done There is no content under 'history', only a main and a seealso. The history of the airline article is incorrectly capitalized.
 * done A single section (incorrectly capitalized) about "New Corporate Livery".
 * done Sentences such as "Biman is notable for poor customer service and disruptions to its flight schedule which is reflected in its Star ranking from Skytrax,[7][10] a United Kingdom-based consultancy whose research has been used by the UK government in formulating air transport policy." reek of POV. Starting off the entire service section with a single, subjective opinion on customer service and then justifying it based on the UK Government using (probably unrelated) information from the same company is not good. A factual presentation should be presented first, and then criticism should be presented fairly and based on its own merit.
 * The prose under 'Destinations' does not summarize the airlines destinations and routes, but talks largely about competition and overfocuses on the Dhaka to London route.
 * The Hajj section should in part be incorporated into the history section and in part be reduced slightly.
 * done Why on earth does the 'New York and Manchester' service have its own section?
 * Because of the major significance of this route to Biman and interest at Bangladesh government level.

Arsenikk (talk)  10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * done Codeshare agreements is so short that it should be incorporated into other areas.
 * done The fleet list uses hyphens instead of endashes.
 * done The fleet section should have some prose to explain and summarize the table.
 * done There is no discussion of the historic fleet, nor is a table included.
 * done The accident and incident section uses IATA codes for airport names; these should never be used in prose, as only aviation geeks actually manage to keep track of them.
 * The refs are not properly formatted. Authors for news items are never included (I presume this information is available for at least some of them), there are some bare links and works are not properly in italics.
 * done Seem to me there are an excessive number of external links.


 * done Image licenses check OK, but alt text missing. DrKiernan (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. After looking at the article history, it seems that one particular editor removed massive amounts of text, and restructured the whole article and caused all the mess over the last 2 months. To begin the fix, I have reverted to a previous version of the FA. This should fix most of the problems you mentioned above. I have also started making the other changes you asked for. Give me about a week to fix these. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me also for bringing this up. The article is now somewhat in the guise it was when it got FA and some of the recent edits have been reverted. The other points will also be addressed. → AA (talk) — 23:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text; please see Alternative text for images. Eubulides (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already added them. Is it not showing up correctly? Also, more images of new livery to be added shortly. → AA (talk) — 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The alt text is present for all images except for the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 landing image. However, the alt text needs some work. The point of alt text is to convey the gist of the image to sightless or sight-impaired readers. It cannot contain information that is not readily apparent to a non-expert with no other information than looking at the photo. So, instead of saying "Biman Boeing 707", it should say something like "A large blue and white aircraft stands on a runway. In the background are several other partially-dismantled aircraft". Please read WP:ALT for details. Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers. I've updated them all again but please assist and modify if any of them need changing. Thanks again. → AA (talk) — 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good, except File:Biman logo.png lacks alt text. Please use the alt parameter of Infobox airline. Eubulides (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - updated that too. → AA (talk) — 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good; thanks for all that work. Eubulides (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness, undue weight, MOS.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll '')  06:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate and give examples of the following please so that it can be rectified:
 * Prose: A few members of the Guild of Copy Editors went through and did a copyedit during its peer review.
 * Comprehensiveness: What elements of this airline are missing from the article?
 * Undue weight: Please elaborate where this has taken place.
 * MOS: What needs to be improved?
 * It seemed like the commentary during FAR had ended so am a bit surprised to see it move to FARC.
 * Thanks. → AA (talk) — 10:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * BL, this is surprising. The issues raised during FAR seems to be all resolved. So, what are the new issues that you allude to? It will be helpful if you, rather than making vague comments, be more specific. Since a lot of editors are willing to fix any possible shortcomings, it will be helpful if you be specific about your objections. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please realize that when moving articles from FAR to FARC, YellowMonkey simply lists all of the concerns that were noted at any point in the FAR section. His listing in no way implies that he agrees or disagrees with any of the points, or believes that any of the points still need to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - major concerns raised by Arsenikk have been resolved by reverting changes made by one editor and it has been brought up-to-date with images featuring the new livery. → AA (talk) — 10:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - all the major concerns addressed and no further concerns raised in specific apart from quoting the policy vaguely. looks better than the article that passed through the FA process. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Arsenikk (talk)  22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist - a lot of primary (not listed below) and unreliable sourcing.
 * Reviewed Refs 67/68 don't appear to support the sentence.
 * Updated sentence and sources. → AA
 * What makes these reliable sources?
 * http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=5131
 * Because Aviation Safety Network is also used as a reference in other reliable sources:
 * http://www.airport-technology.com/features/feature1424/
 * http://library.rice.edu/collections/eresources/aviation-safety-network
 * http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/1594.pdf
 * Why do you suggest this is not a reliable source? → AA
 * I don't anymore. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! :) → AA (talk) — 08:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.airliners.net/photo/0114373/M/
 * This can be removed as the main ref is Jatree but since Jatree does not have an online link, this serves as an image to show there was a DC6 in Biman's fleet. → AA
 * Try converting it to an external link? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean an inline external link or to put it in the External links section? → AA (talk) — 08:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Status on this? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved now to EL section. → AA (talk) — 09:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Biman%20Bangladesh.htm
 * Best discussed in WikiProject Aviation since it is used as a reference in most airline articles. → AA
 * Perhaps it does need discussion at the WikiProject, but this FAR pertains only to this article. "Other articles use it" is not the best argument for a source's reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help Dabomb. AA, he's right. This editorial may also help. I'll get back to this tomorrow (bed time for me). — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and I do understand that is not necessarily a valid argument but since all airline articles use it, if it is felt that this is not a reliable source it would be beneficial to raise the issue with the WikiProject so that it can be discussed and dealt with in one place than in piecemeal fashion across every article. I have just reviewed the primary source which surprisingly has been updated recently, so I'll update the sources in the article appropriately. Thanks again for your comments. → AA (talk) — 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This editorial might also be of use. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Was this removed? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I replaced it with ref to Biman's website. → AA (talk) — 00:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Biman logo.svg doesn't meet WP:NFC — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Biman has only just undergone re-branding and many readers will be familiar with the old logo so it does serve to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". → AA
 * I've asked User:J Milburn to take a look at this. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Ed. There is generally considered to be some kind of "automatic" entitlement to a company's logo in the article on the company, but this does not extend to historical logos. If the historical logo is so important, why is it not discussed in the article? This is a fairly clear case of a non-free image not meeting NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - thanks. I'll remove it from the article. → AA (talk) — 08:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

More concerns:
 * Banglapedia is definitely not reliable (ie refs 4, 7, 10)
 * And why is that?
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Encyclopedias don't, as a general rule, cite other encyclopedias.
 * Banglapedia has a neutrality problem, for example —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Still too many primary sources to the airline's website
 * How is Skytrax reliable?
 * Ref 53/54 are citing in-fight videos? I fail to see how an in-flight video can support sentences like "While other airlines using modern aircraft are able to provide more personal in-flight experiences via seatback LCD screens, Biman's ageing fleet has maintained the standard equipment available when the planes were manufactured." (also: videos were taken down off the site)
 * Why are refs 95, 96, 98 reliable?
 * While this article is better than most, significant referencing work is needed before this can remain featured. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The prose is, at best, just OK for a featured article.
 * I'm unsure why the interiors and exteriors of what are aircraft models used by many airlines are featured in images.
 * Reviewed Once "US" dollars are referred to, the reader will expect all $ signs to refer to US dollars. There is no need to repeat it.
 * Reviewed This sentence is a monster: "The eight aircraft include four Boeing 777-300ER with an average price of US$182.9 million per unit to be delivered in 2013 (in the months of July, August, October and December) and four yet to be launched Boeing 787–8 Dreamliners with an average price of US$133.31 million per unit to join Biman's fleet in 2017 (in July, August, October and November)." Punctuation so it can breathe and be grammatical?
 * Reviewed Why is "seating capacity" linked, let alone twice on the same line? Tony   (talk)  13:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. I've rephrased the para and removed unnecessary detail. Not sure if the endash's are suitable or if commas should be used. Please correct if necessary. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 13:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is "US$" linked? Why is the conversion to Bangladeshi currency not marked with an "as of 2010": surely it changes significantly over time.
 * "which had almost a ten-times larger fleet."
 * "Managing director", "CEO"—why linked?
 * Awkward with + noun + -ing": "and problems with Biman maintaining its flight schedules": just remove two words. Again, I wonder about the utility of some of the images; it's weird to read about incompetence and inefficiency on a grand scale—the airline crumbling, frankly, next to swish photos of cabin interiors. Bizarre.
 * "along with Biman's in-flight magazine, Digonto (Horizon) which is published quarterly"—another comma required. That whole paragraph about the blessed in-house magazine is really boring.
 * "by 4.6% and 6% respectively"—see MOSNUM about using the same number of decimal places.
 * The smuggling of
 * In order to (spot two redudant words).

I am not satisfied that this meets FA standards; it's fascinating as an account of developing-world public-sector corruption, and how not to run an airline, and how the utter failure of public policy combines with corruption to rip off the people; but that is not enough. Although I don't have enough energy to say "get rid of it" by myself, but it would be good to put this through the FA process again after polishing. Tony  (talk)  01:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think all of these issues have been addressed now, and the whole article is being copyedited again. Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that, today's newspapers in Bangladesh mentioned that the cabinet has decided to revert back to the old logo. Here is a link to the news report. . --Ragib (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist . This has obviously improved very substantially from the version that was nominated here, but I share Tony's concerns about the prose; I've given some examples below. I could be persuaded to switch my vote if the article was given a thorough copyedit though. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Requested copyedit from WP:GOCE → AA (talk) — 09:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Biman also fell behind millions of dollars in payments to its fuel supplier, the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation." Strange word order.


 * "The airline was wholly owned by the Bangladesh government through the Bangladesh Biman Corporation since its inception." "Was" and "since" seem to sit strangely together in this sentence.


 * "After an early period of expansion and growth, Biman entered an era of nose-diving profits and slow growth, exacerbated by incompetent and corrupt management; with padding of purchases, falsified repair bills and unprofitable routes kept in operation for political reasons." What comes after a semicolon should be a proper sentence, and "with" rarely make a good linking word in any case.


 * "In the 1992–93 fiscal year, accounts under the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism ...". What does "accounts under" mean? Accounts produced by? Accounts sumbitted to?


 * "... but intends to offer 49% to the private sector while retaining majority ownership". Why "while"? Isn't is self-evident that it would have majority ownership with 51%?


 * "Biman's service as a whole is reflected in its two-star ranking (out of five) from Skytrax, which is indicative of the poor standard of service provided by the airline that falls below the industry average." Really quite awkward "reflected ... indicative".


 * "The incident put an end to the route, which had been losing $80,000 per flight, owing to its use of obsolete DC–10s.[80] Biman decided to axe the route ...". We've just been told that the route was "ended"; is that different from "axed"?


 * "Fourteen people suffered minor injuries and the aircraft written off." Shouldn't that be "was written off"?


 * Delist. The prose was already poor, but it's now been made even worse. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding "Done" or "OK" templates to FAR, normally I remove them myself, as they cause archives to exceed template limits, but there are too many here to remove myself. Also, please stop altering reviewer comments by adding unsigned templates to them-- we need to know who claims something is reviewed, done or OK, and that should be done by adding a separate signed statement after the reviewer comments, so delegates don't have to go back through diffs to see who's done what.  If the article is as messy as this FAR, we've got issues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.