Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive2

Vietnam Airlines
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because there have been extensive updating of the article by a wide range of editors, including me. Comments to how I can revise and improve is needed.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Sp33dyphil  (Talk) (Contributions) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you looking for? FA advice?  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not looking for FA but rather GA advice first. I don't want to jump too far ahead. Sp33dyphil  (Talk) (Contributions) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some MOS tweaks. The info needs to be sourced, most of it is not  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and while it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it already, I agree that it needs a lot of work before it would pass at GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Biggest problem I see is a lack of references - as it is this has fact tags and a whole section with a refs needed banner (which means technically we could close the PR right now for a major cleanup banner). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Some of the refs used are incomplete too - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Make sure the sources used are reliable - for example what makes planespotters.net a RS? I also note that there seem to be no books at all used in the article. There have to be some books on the subnject that could be used (apologies if I missed a book ref, but in any case more are needed).
 * Similarly I would try to avoid using the airline's own website wherever possible - try for independent third-party published sources.
 * The toolbox (upper right corner of this PR) finds several problems:
 * automated tips has several good suggestions on American vs British English, units, etc. The convert template is useful for doing conversions between units and following the MOS
 * disambig links finds several problem dabs, including a circular redirect back to this article - all of these need to be fixed
 * external links finds several dead links and others which are possibly dead or broken
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the possible loss of the Miss World pageant seems to only be in the lead.
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example I would mention in the lead that the airline traces its roots back to 1956
 * Per WP:HEAD (sub)section headers should not repeat all or part of section headers or the title, if at all possible. So the "Services" section could just have "In-flight" and "Ground" (or perhaps "Lounges" as its two subsections).
 * The article is fairly list-y. The lists could be converted to tables or oerhaps prose in most cases, for example there is already a modern fleet table, so the retired fleet should also be a similar table for consistency. This would make the article read / flow better
 * The article also has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs. The short paragraphs could be combined with others or perhaps expanded, again to improve flow
 * The article has a lot of typos and poor grammar and could use a copyedit.
 * This is not a complete, line by line review - there are too many issues to be doing that yet. I would fix everything listed here, then bring this back to PR before trying GAN. Good luck!