Talk:Singapore Airlines/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: KN2731 (talk · contribs) 12:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

At first glance, the article needs substantial work.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   a) There are some language issues that I'll go into further detail below. Numbers below 10, including ordinals, should be spelled out (see MOS:ORDINAL). I see one MOS:DASH violation in the lead's third paragraph. b) Going by other airline GAs to assess the layout here. For the lead, the 3rd paragraph could give a brief history of the airline instead of mentioning rankings? Rankings, while they do make an airline notable, aren't as useful to the reader in a lead section. As it is, an article should not be host to an indiscriminate list of rankings. For structure, the KrisFlyer section should be renamed Frequent flyer programme and subsumed under In-flight Services which itself should be renamed to Services. The history section also shouldn't be empty (see criterion 3a).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   a) The citation style is inconsistent and often lacking. Many authors, dates, and accessdates are missing. Authors' names should be presented consistently, either using |last= and |first= to get lastname, firstname or |author=firstname lastname. When referencing the SIA website, the website parameter should stick to "singaporeair.com". Some archived references are not presented properly (e.g. 99). Some references (e.g. 100) appear to have moved to different locations and need to be updated. b) Besides statements with citation needed tags, there are numerous unsourced statements within the destinations, fleet, livery, and in-flight services sections. Not sure if ref 8 is considered reliable since it's a blog. I would prefer that the in-flight services and KrisFlyer sections rely less on primary sources (i.e. SIA's website). The information is okay (maybe even excessive?), but surely there are other independent secondary/tertiary sources that describe it in sufficient detail. If there aren't, consider trimming the material. c) Not sure if the unsourced statements in the previously mentioned sections are OR, if they can be sourced then it's fine. d) Copyvio tool doesn't turn up anything of note.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   History section should at least have a few paragraphs of content even with a separate article. It should at least cover origination from Malayan Airways Limited, splitting off from Malaysia-Singapore Airlines, growth and expansion through to the 21st century, joining Star Alliance, being launch customers for the A380, B787-10, and A359 ULR, as well as its two-decade streak as world's best airline. To keep it balanced, remember to add in the controversies over the pilots' union in the 1980s, SQ6, and other lawsuits.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Honestly at this point I don't think there will be major concerns over this if the above are addressed.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Ignoring vandalism, there appear to be concerns about the content of the lead from 10 September.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Looks okay. Two instances of "SQ" in captions should be expanded though.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This will need a lot of work, but I'm willing to leave this on hold since you appear active and I think you'll be done in less than a month. Feel free to ping me if you need clarification on anything I've said or to provide updates. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Prose issues

Will get to this after a more thorough read-through. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead

After reading more closely, I'm finding more issues with this.

• Rankings - leave only the most notable in. That would be winning best airline at the Skytrax awards four times, as well as topping Travel & Leisure's rankings for 20+ years. The rest aren't useful in a lead section. There are more essential things that give a better overview of Singapore Airlines.
• Speaking of more essential things: passenger numbers? Range or approximate number of destinations? Number of employees? History of the airline? Which airline alliance does it belong to? (I'm surprised this one isn't inside.) A brief mention of what type of aircraft it operates? These are information that readers are more likely to want to obtain from a lead section instead of just rankings.
• The paragraph on subsidiaries is fine.

~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

History

As mentioned above, this should, at the very least, have a couple of paragraphs. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Corporate affairs

This section needs more love. There should be some information about people employed, an overview of how the company has performed financially over the years, the number of passengers it carries, as well as something about about the unions controversy. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Destinations

Unsourced or insufficiently sourced statements:

• "together with its subsidiary SilkAir, connects Singapore with more international destinations in the region than any other Southeast Asian airline"
• "After the Asian financial crisis in 1997, Singapore Airlines discontinued its routes to Kagoshima, Berlin, Darwin, Cairns, Hangzhou, and Sendai. Toronto was discontinued in 1994. During the SARS outbreak in 2003–04, Singapore Airlines ceased flights to Brussels, Las Vegas, Chicago, Hiroshima, Kaohsiung, Mauritius, Vienna, Madrid, Shenzhen, and Surabaya" - source only supports cancellations of services to Chicago and Las Vegas.
• "Singapore Airlines also operated flights between Singapore and Wellington via Canberra until May 2018, when the flight was changed to operate via Melbourne. This route was known as the Capital Express."
• "India and Australia are served by highest number of destinations with 6 each." Ungrammatical too.
• "Singapore Airlines has taken advantage of liberal bilateral aviation agreements between Singapore and Thailand, and with the United Arab Emirates, to offer more onward connections from Bangkok and Dubai respectively."

Other issues:

• Third and fourth paragraph can be merged by adding a simple "Three years later," or similar for better flow. Mention about classes can be moved to fleet.
• AirAsia paragraph: references should be placed after punctuation. Both instances of LCCs should be expanded since they aren't defined anywhere in the article.
• Last paragraph on SIN-EWR resumption: this can be merged into the earlier paragraph about the US flights for better flow. As it is, this paragraph duplicates some of the earlier information anyway.
• Codeshare partners: update with the latest information on the Singaporeair website. In this case the primary source is the best source since it supposedly provides the most accurate and up-to-date information.
• Update the number of destinations, given the recent announcement about taking over SilkAir's flights to Busan. Again primary source is best here.

That should be it for this section. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Fleet

For one, this section should be updated and sourced. More details on the current fleet could also be given - number of each aircraft type, maybe? A brief mention of what aircraft the airline has operated historically would also be nice. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Livery

Besides the obvious implication that the descriptions of all three liveries are unsourced, maybe this could be merged into the history section instead? I don't think an entire level 2 section is necessary. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Services

I've gone ahead and merged the KrisFlyer and In-flight services sections for you. I think my description earlier wasn't exactly that clear. As above, I've renamed the KrisFlyer section as Frequent flyer programme, and also renamed the KrisWorld section as In-flight entertainment, as these titles are more intuitive to our readers who don't know much about the airline. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The more I read this section, the more I find that the details are a little excessive. Do we really need to mention every amenity that each class provides? Do we need to give every design feature of the seats? Do we also need to mention every seat configuration for each class on each aircraft type? Such extensive listing of miscellaneous information is not encyclopedic. Can you try and cut it to at most two to three short paragraphs for each class? By "short" I mean about 150 words or less. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Similarly for in-flight entertainment: the bulleted list isn't needed and looks more like an advert, honestly. The last paragraph should also be in past tense. Frequent flyer programme looks fine, just the different tiers should be sourced. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents

• 1991, 2000, and 2003 incidents need to be sourced.
• The hyphen after "12 March 2003" should be changed to an en dash.
• For the 2016 incident, 5 should be spelled out, i.e. "five minutes".

That's it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

General

Okay, this looks like a lot of work but I sincerely believe these can all be corrected. I may try to help out myself if I can find the time. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I will help out with this nomination as i think the original nominator is not really commited to the page. 1.02 editor (T/C) 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been two months... @1.02 editor: ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

KN2731, I've just posted to 102 editor's talk page requesting a response. Unless you hear back that they are willing and able to take on this review in full within the seven standard days, I strongly recommend closing this as unsuccessful. This was an out-of-process nomination to begin with by an editor who made only a couple of minor edits to the article (they're supposed to check with the significant contributors to see whether they think the article is at the required standard before nominating), which were reverted for puffery issues. Thanks for taking this review on, and I'm sorry your hard work hasn't garnered more of a response. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the note and for attempting to contact 1.02 editor. I'll be going overseas on vacation next week, so if I don't hear a response from him by tomorrow I'll close it as unsuccessful. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a response I have closed the nomination as unsuccessful. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)