Talk:United Airlines/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I'll start reviewing the article soon.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This section needs much more references; this another one has dead links.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Original research found here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm failing the nomination, as per the comments immediately below this table.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Jetstreamer, you understand that this review cannot take the five months that the last one (which was very similar to this one) did, correct? --Rschen7754 09:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I do.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll get yelled at for this, but I'm jumping and failing this GAN for multiple reasons. First, it's been three weeks and Compdude isn't addressing any of the concernsfrom the last two batches, despite clearly being on and editing. Second, there are a large number of tags on the article that should have been addressed before a GAN was started. Third, there are a lot of major additions being thrown in by users, affecting article stability. Fourth, just from a skim I can tell the article needs a lot of work, most of which Jetstreamer has noted so far, but this is not near even GAN level, let alone GA. Lastly, the last review took five months, and honestly, that was in much better shape than this article is. This one would take an extra few months on top of the time invested. Jetstreamer is more than welcome to continue reviewing the article, but it shuld be outside of the GAN process for the time being. If there's a problem then ask on the GAN talk page, I'm standing firm in this decision. Wizardman 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about not addressing the issues this article had. I let you down. Even to begin with, I neglected to carefully check for basic issues before putting this up for GA review. I'm really sorry about not following through and fixing the problems; Jetstreamer you deserve an apology. I don't know why, but it seems that I just lost all motivation to improve this article. Ah, I'm so angry at myself right now!! Okay, I won't bungle a review like this again, now that I know the consequences. —Compdude¹²³ 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

History

• 1st paragraph
  • Question: Are the first two sentences supported by the same reference? The reference in question has been archived.
  • The following two sentences are unsourced. I've marked them with a {{cn-span}} tag.

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• • The infobox says the airline was founded on 6 April 1926, but the text says it first flew a day earlier. This needs to be fixed. More confusion is added when the infobox claims operations were started in 1927! Furthermore, please cleanup the infobox by taking references out of it. Please bear in mind that infoboxes are just a summary of the entire article, so there's no need to source anything there than can be sourced in the mainspace.

 Done – I fixed the date that it was founded. It didn't match the reference for some reason. And the date for commencing ops, I changed that to April 6, 1926 because that makes more sense. I moved all the refs out of the infobox and moved them to the history section, though I deleted some to prevent citation overkill. The only ref I kept in the infobox was the one for the subsidiaries, because the infobox is the only place where subsidiaries are mentioned. —Compdude¹²³ 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph
  • Fully unsourced. Marked as above

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I've linked World War II
• 3rd paragraph
  • Made use of {{US$}}
  • Linked Curtiss-Wright
• 4th paragraph
  • Nothing to comment
• 5th paragraph
  • Entirely unsourced

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• 6th paragraph
  • Is it fully referenced by the two sources placed at their end?

Unfortunately no, but I will find sources ASAP. —Compdude¹²³ 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed – It is so much easier to find historical sources and news articles for this article than it was for Alaska Airlines! —Compdude¹²³ 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• 7th paragraph
  • Definitely needs more sourcing, unless the single reference included supports it. Just marked the last sentences as unsourced.

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually  Half done – I found an archived version of the first ref in that paragraph, and now I see it doesn't provide support for all of the statements preceding it. Will find sources soon; I'll try and get to it later today. —Compdude¹²³ 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done – More sources have been added. —Compdude¹²³ 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• 8th, 9th and 10th paragraphs
  • They are fully unsourced.

Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• 11th paragraph
  • Made use of {{US$}} as above
  • Last sentence is partly unreferenced

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• 12th paragraph
  • Is it neccesary for it to be a single sentence? I mean, can it be merged into another paragraph? BTW, it's unsourced.

 Removed – It doesn't even add much info to the article anyway. —Compdude¹²³ 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• 13th paragraph
  • It is mentioned that the company resumed merger talks with Continental. When these merger talks started? It's not mentioned in the previous paragraphs

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Unsourced stuff was also marked

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• 14th paragraph, 15th paragraph and 16th paragraph
  • Linked European Union and US Justice Department
  • I suggest merging them into a single one, as all the info included deals with the same subject.

 Done —Compdude¹²³ 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't fail the nomination for now, but this section is in bad need of more references. More review to come.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 03:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week. Is the review over? Did the reviewer put it on hold? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why the rush? No, it's not over. I'll let you know when it is. I will continue reviewing when I have the time to do so. It will help if you fix the above issues.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Predecessors

• Please fix the ″80+″ in the first paragraph. This paragraph has also an issue with citation overkill. I suggest placing an inline citation at the end of each entry in order to clarify which source supports what.

 Done – A few sources were removed. I would have put them with each entry but I don't own those books and I would have no way of knowing what ref goes with what company. —Compdude¹²³ 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• The las paragraph is unsourced; I've marked it as such.

 Fixed —Compdude¹²³ 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest merging the section into the previous one, as the content is related to the history of the company.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done – Made a sub-section of the History section. —Compdude¹²³ 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Corporate affairs

Headquarters

• The first paragraph has two dead links. I don't see in the single alive link that the former headquarters had ″long-time″ been located at Elk Grove Township; this supporting reference dates from 2006, it can be used by no means to support a long-time period. I'm afraid this is original research. In the same paragraph, I don't see the encyclopedic content of mentioning that the airline considered moving the headquarters to thred different addresses.

 Fixed – Removed unverifiable "long-time" blurb, fixed the dead links, and removed last sentence (meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with Chicago). —Compdude¹²³ 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph has a dead link. I've made use of {{US$}} here.

 Fixed dead links. —Compdude¹²³ 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Second and third paragraphs are repetitive, as both mention that Willis Tower is located in downtown Chicago. Furthermore, the announcement the airline would move the headquarters is not important here, what matters is the current location, so please remove the first sentence of the third paragraph entirely. There's a dead link in the third paragraph as well.

 Already done —Compdude¹²³ 18:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Two reference have been archived.

Other facilities

• I guess the first reference (BTW, it's dead) supports the first two sentences of the paragraph, so I moved it in accordance to WP:CITEFOOT. Moreover, {{convert}} has been used, and a reference has been archived.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I found an identical version of that first reference on another website, and it doesn't back up any of the claims in this article. I couldn't even find any info on their "fact sheet" from their website. Thus, the info was removed. —Compdude¹²³ 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmental strategy

• The last part of the first paragraph is unsourced; please also note that its single source is dead.

 Removed first paragraph. —Compdude¹²³ 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• {{Convert}} has been used again; {{nowrap}} has been removed
• Two references have been archived.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please try and finish reviewing ASAP? I'm going to be more busy next week, and will have less time to address your concerns. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 01:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Labor

• A reference has been archived.
• I've merged the last unsourced paragraph into the previous one.
• Unsourced content has been marked using {{cn-span}}.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed – Found a source to prove that UA's pilots are represented by the ALPA. As for the unsourced sentence you marked, I just got rid of it because it seemed unimportant. That sentence has been there for at least a month, and you'd think they would be on strike by now. Hasn't happened, fortunately. —Compdude¹²³ 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Brand image

• Both pages of the sole reference have been archived.
• I've marked the second paragraph as unsourced. Most of the info included in the third one is not present in the aforementioned source, which I've tagged with {{additional citation needed}}.
• Where do the dates appearing below each of the three-logo set come from? Furthermore, I think the set needs a caption.
• The "Rising blue" livery mentioned in the figure caption is not discussed in the text. Thus, the figure caption is also unsourced.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Marketing themes

• It is true that there's a link pointing at another article, but the content included here should be sourced as well. Therefore, the first paragrapgh should at least include a reference.
• This reference is a link rot.
• Made use of {{US$}} (and the adjustment due to inflation is also interesting).
• The other reference has been archived.
• The Copyright Term Extension Act is linked, but it won't hurt anyone to have an inline citaton to the related stuff here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 03:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sponsorships

• The first paragrapgh is unsourced.
• As for the NYG-related sentence, the source does not mention that the airline became their sponsor following merger with Continental.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 03:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be continuing with this tomorow...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 03:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Destinations

• The section introduction includes a reference to a blog, which is bo no means considered a reliable source. I'm removing it. Furthermore, if the airline is among the ones that fly to all six inhabited continents, it would be also interesting to mention which are the others.
• The caption in the map is wrong, as it shows countries, not destinations. Please correct it. Morevoer, it should be dated, i.e. as of when it is valid.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Route network

• The first paragraph is not supported by the reference provided.
• Where in the reference supporting the second paragraph is said that the agreement was not reciprocal?
• The reference backing the Guanghzou service is dead.
• The reference for the launch of services to Accra is undated, so it's hard to verify the date provided. Also, the source doesn't say that this destination was the airlines' first in Africa. Furthermore, the source related to Lagos services announces the commencement of flights. We need here a reference verifying that services effectively started.
• I have reorganised the stuff a bit, removed the part saying that flights to Shangai were launched in 2011 (the supporting reference is dated at 2010), and three references were archived.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Codeshare agreements

Only two of the airlines mentioned are provided with references, one of them being dead.

I have added 2 missing airlines. The dead link has been replaced with another that also sources the other airlines in the list. I can't find any source that says United codeshare with all Star Alliance airlines, as the article leads me to believe. However the reference i use also leads you to believe that. --JetBlast (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall, there are unsourced statementes that need to be fixed. My main concern here is that, being the airline one of the largest worldwide, the sub-section is slanted towards the last years. I will require considerable expansion for the section, mostly considering that United Airlines destinations and United Express destinations limit to list the destinations (the later being almost unsourced at all).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fleet

Current

• I've tagged the sub-section as having a citation overkill issue almost immediately after I started reviewing the article and nothing changed since then. Supposedly, the fleet table is supported by seven different references, but it is unclear which of them supports what. Please follow the inline citation guidelines here.
• Aside from the poor English, another concern of mine is how encyclopedic can be the fact that some aircraft are ″to receive winglets″. Please remove all the unnecessary information from the Notes column.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Removed — Notes removed. Where not notable as per guidelines, other detail was not sourced. I struggled to find anything to support the other detail that was from a credible source. We don't really need the notes. British Airways for example doesn't --JetBlast (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fleet history

• The reference supporting the table is dead.
• The fleet history has little information regarding the historical fleet, and only mentions recent orders. The table should be a summary of companion text that is not present. Furthermore, if that info is included in History of United Airlines (I doubt it does), it is scattered all over that article and fleet-related text is hard to find. This sub-section is in need of a (more or less) thorough description of the fleet evolution throughout the years.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)