Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Dragonair

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dragonair[edit]

Hi there, I have taken this article to GA-status and would like to get it higher. I would be very interested your opinion on what can be improved for promotion. Thanks! Aviator006 (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mukkakukaku[edit]

First thing I noticed, right off the bat, is that of the 53 references you have, almost half (22) are somehow affiliated with Dragonair itself (press releases, website, &tc.) Inandof itself this is not a bad thing; their website and press releases will have a plethora of information. What I worry is that when an overwhelming majority of references are from a single source, especially when that source is the topic itself, then you might not be getting the best, most unbiased information available.

As the airline was initially a regional airline serving secondary cities in China, its media coverage is not that great. Most of the information I managed to find to cite is from official press releases, website and related company websites. Please advise the specific areas of concern, as in what exact information you felt it was bias, this will enable me to try and hopefully find other supporting information and citations. Aviator006 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section

"Tough beginning" doesn't seem like a very encyclopedic heading (it sounds like something I'd expect to find on their website; it has a certain implication of -- "look we overcame all these terrible hardships and difficulties and look how great we are now!")
Updated to "Early beginning". Aviator006 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is ambiguous: "In January 1987, the airline announced the order of two long-range McDonnell Douglas MD-11 aircraft; however, due to strong opposition by Cathay Pacific, it was not able to gain the scheduled routes it needed to compete effectively." Why? This first section (tough beginning) is rather confusing.
Paragraph revised and rephrased. Aviator006 (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the "1990s" section, you have this orphaned sentence: "In the 1990s, Dragonair was headquartered in the Devon House in Taikoo Place." Not sure what significance that has. What is Taikoo Place? What is Devon House? Where are they?
Removed orphaned sentence. Aviator006 (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking you've got a lot of problems with tenses: -ed instead of -ing. EG: "The airline's net profits rose 60 percent to HK$540 million in 2002, with cargo operations accounted for 30 percent of revenues; and freight volume increased nearly 50 percent to 20,095 tonnes." should be "The airline's net profits rose 60 percent to HK$540 million in 2002, with cargo operations accounting for 30 percent of revenues; and freight volume increasing nearly 50 percent to 20,095 tonnes."
Updated as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiaries

The table lists three, but only one is actually expanded upon.
The one that has been expanded was a major former subsidiary. Hence, it is no longer listed in the table. Aviator006 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section needs some introductory text as well.
Introductory text added as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations

I don't think the article ever actually lists all the destinations. Yes, there's a "see also", but there should be a summary here. This section should have the listing of all the places they'll go, while the other article Dragonair destinations, should have the nitpicky stuff: in 2008, they added these routes; in 2009 they cut back on these, &tc.
Summary added as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Livery + Special Livery

Both are extremely short sub sections and should be combined.
Paragraph combined as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has the livery changed at all since its founding? This should be mentioned too.
Original livery details added and cited. Aviator006 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers

The text says there are three classes of passenger, First/Business/Economy, and the table uses the letters F/J/Y to distinguish them. Which is which?
Added wikilinks on F/J/Y to First Class/Business Class/Economy Class articles. Aviator006 (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table should be expanded to include totals for seating areas as well as aircraft count.
Please clarify your request, the Seating total is represented horizontally, F/J/Y/Total (ie. 0/8/150/158 = 0+8+150=158). Aviator006 (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo Club

The image is kind of floating off by itself; it needs a border and a caption.
Updated as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the table, Green Tier row, Oneworld status column is empty. If there is no equivalent Oneworld status, it should be none, not entirely blank. (Entirely blank makes the formatting look weird -- the border disappears, &tc.)
Table not notable and removed. Aviator006 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider changing font color on Green Tier in table to white; black-on-dark-green is kind of hard to read.
Table not notable and removed. Aviator006 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tier subsections can be merged with the parent section (Marco Polo Club). Frankly, it doesn't give any information not already provided by the table. Consider making the table float left and summarizing key points in paragraph form. (Ex: "The Marco Polo Club consists of four tiers: Green, Silver, Gold, and Diamond....")
Table not notable and removed. Aviator006 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Miles

Image needs border and caption.
Updated as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Services

Merge small sections and add introductory paragraph. (See comment in "Other/General comments")
Paragraphs combined as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

Section either needs to be integrated elsewhere -- perhaps the History section -- or expanded with actual text to go along with the collapsable template.
Moved into 'Services' Section as these are service awards. Aviator006 (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents/Accidents

Should probably be moved up to just under Fleet section. That way the logical flow of the article is Introduction > History > Destinations > Fleet > Accidents > Loyalty > Services > Awards. (On second thought, Loyalty should be moved after Services.) Right now this tiny section seems like an afterthought. I actually missed it on my first read-through.
No action taken as this section's location complies with the WikiProject guidelines. Aviator006 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other/General comments

Cathay Pacific may be overlinked. I can't run AWB right now on this computer or I'd go and check for sure.
Cathay Pacific is only wikilinked 5 times in the entire article, but nevertheless reduced to 3 times. Aviator006 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of single-paragraph subsections. Most of these can be integrated into parent sections, or merged with other single-paragraph subsections. If all there is is a paragraph, I don't need a heading telling me what the paragraph is about!
Livery and Services sections have sub-paragraphs integrated. Aviator006 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add a See also section for related links.
I don't believe it is necessary as most of the related articles are in the navbox. Aviator006 (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and wow, I talk a lot. I hope at least some of this is helpful. A lot of this is stuff I've been forced to do for GA status, so it should apply for A or FA status as well. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All comments reviewed, updated or replied. Aviator006 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nil response from reviewer for over 14 days, will archive PR in preparation for FA nomination. Aviator006 (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.