Talk:Vietnam Airlines/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
  • Please remember to subst the GAN template.
    • Nota bene* Please help me out with this. I don't know what do you exactly mean with "subst" (sorry for my ignorance...).--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aboard a Boeing 777 during Frankfurt flight .jpg seems to lack proper licensing. First, it should be uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia. Secondly, if you have obtained permission from someone to use their image, you have to send the permission via OTRS.
  • Please do not link to other parts of the article
  • The phrase "Vietnam Airlines was subsequently formed in 1996" sounds awkward and is confusing.
  • The information about Miss World in the lead is WP:UNDUE.
    •  Done. The information has been removed. I agree with you that it is completely irrelevant.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slogans are not in italics, as should not 'Vietnam Civil Aviation' and 'Civil Aviation Administration of Vietnam' (fixed)
  • Lead says 69, infobox 70 aircraft
    •  Done. According to the reference provided, the fleet has 69 aircraft.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • State Capital Investment Corporation is a plausible article and should be linked (fixed)
  • In the lead it says the airline was established in 1989, yet in the history section it says " January 1956, when it was established"
  • The end of that sentence is awkward; it would be much better to avoid use of a semicolon and instead make two sentences.
  • The sentence "The airline was created as part of the air force, which was to be used for civilian purposes." says that the air force (not the airline) is to be used for civilian purposes.
  • Don't link 'destination', it is a common word and the link doesn't help understand the term if you don't know what destination means. Similarly, don't link tonne and flight, see WP:OVERLINK. Units, such as tonnes, should be converted to imperial units; {{convert}} makes this easy.
  • Specify in which country Vientiane is; that is not common knowledge outside of that part of the world.
    •  Not done. I don't think the article should be that precise. Anyone interested or curious about the location of this city may go to the Vientiane article in order to learn where the city is located. Instead, I have wikilinked Beijing.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what did exactly the airline do during the war? Did they have scheduled domestic flights?
    • I'm not sure -- no publications touched on it. Sp33dyphil © • © 06:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the late 1980s and early 1990s saw" reads very awkward.
  • "commencement" is an unnecessary complex word.
  • What do you mean by "Western-type aircraft operations"?
    •  Done. It should be read “Western-built aircraft”.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "By July the following year, the airline agreed to a wet-lease agreement with Dutch lessor TransAvia. The aircraft involved was a Boeing 737–300," is unnecessarily complex, why not just say "By July 1985, the airline started a wet-lease agreement with Dutch lessor TransAvia for a Boeing 737–300"
  • When writing about the past, use past tense.
  • If VNA is a common abbreviation for the airline, specify it in the lead.
    •  Doing.... I don't think so. I'm replacing the acronym used throughout the article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Business class is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized
  • Try to avoid being poetic; this is an encyclopaedia and information should be straight forward. Avoid "on the eve of the second millennium" or "the following year", just write the dates and years.
  • "and another 767,series −300ER" is awkward phrased (and it should be a hyphen, not a minus).
  • Do not put external links in the middle of the text. Mentioning the registration codes of aircraft (except in accident articles) is trivia and should be avoided.
  • Embargo is linked twice
  • Don't put content of the prose in parenthesis. For instance, then sentence starting with "On 20 June 2005" reads awkward. Start with telling about the inauguration of the flight to Berlin, then inform about Frankfurt.
  • Avoid using acronyms, such as IATA, but spell them out in full.
  • I don't think equitize is a good word to use, as neither of the dictionaries I checked have them (and I've never heard the term before and I'm an economist). Stick to privatise.
  • " Vietnam authorized the plan the following year": who authorized it? Vietnam is a country, not an institution.
  • Don't use superscript for ordinal numbers (just write 60th etc).
  • 'Government of Cambodia' is a proper noun and thus linked. Similar with the Vietnamese.
  • Minimize the prose: instead of writing "during the months of September and October", just say "in September and October".

I've looked down to, but not including, 'future'. In general the contents and referencing look fine, but the prose needs some tweaking. I'm placing on hold and will do the rest of the review later. Arsenikk (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing has been done with these issues since the initial part of the review. I would appreciate that these issues be seen to first, as an intention from the nominee to follow up the review, as I spend quite a lot of time on this sort of reviewing, and I have previously done similar reviews with zero feedback (thus I have been wasting my time). Once these issues are seen to, I'll be more than happy to continue the review. Arsenikk (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanna say that I was a major contributor to the article, which was expanded last year. Since then, my writing has improved a lot, and I do realise some of the mistakes in the article were because of my infancy on the site. Sorry Jet for creating so much work for you, but if you need help on anything, I'd be happy to help (it'd better be about aviation, though). Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem buddy. Please note that I'm not going to make major modifications to the article, but only to address the issues raised by the reviewer. I'll be contacting you as soon as I need help. Regards.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Future is not part of history, so it should be a top-level section
  • The section of future intercontinental flights seems a bit under-sourced, as it talks about early 2011 in the future and parts are not referenced.
  • The quote is rather out of place; it would be better to just state the facts.
  • What do you mean with "with preparations underway to accommodate the airline's aircraft at one of the UK's airlines"
  • The section around " up 18% from 1995[77] – 1996 and 1997," doesn't make sense.
  • What is "A75, A76 main bases"? Military bases? This had to be explained somewhat better
  • The article talks about "28 and 29 March 2010" as the future, it seems
  • The destinations section discusses mostly what flights do not yet operate, which is covered in the future section. Please only discuss this in one

place, and spend more prose discussing the actual network. Arsenikk (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
  • "Brand new"? What is the definition of brand new, and are all of them really so?
  • Much of the fleet information is a repeat of the information from the history section.
  • Similarly, the 'modernization' section is largely historic information
  • The fleet section should in general be a rather spartan section, with a table overview of the current, future and past fleet. It can include some prose used to describe the status quo.
  • Are the aircraft in the cargo fleet pure freight aircraft, or are the just passenger aircraft? Do the numbers include the figures in the main fleet list.
  • There is quite a need for a copyedit here, but I am presuming most of it will be stripped, so I will not comment on it.
  • The statement "retiring and scrapping the unreliable Soviet made planes, because they were involved in all of the airline’s crashes." must reference from reliable sources that the reason for retiring the Soviet aircraft was because they were involved in the accidents (and not other reasons, such as operating costs etc).
    •  Done. Trim (Jesus, the old me is so unrecognisable :P) Sp33dyphil © • © 08:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on services can be tightened. Remember, we are neither a travel guide nor the PR department of VA, so just stick to the basics and avoid unnecessary detail. Seat pitches are fine, but details as to how long flights give what type of meals is a bit over the edge. Remember to reference everything and to consequently put metric values first.
  • The accident and incident section needs to be longer, and it needs references. As least give a brief summary of the three lethal accidents.
    •  Done. Only two deadly accidents according to Aviation Safety Network.--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid "in the last 22 years", as in a year, well, it will be in the last 23 years, etc. Who knows how long ago that was written
  • "All fatal incidents have involved Soviet made aircraft that have since been phased out of service." is simply POV and marketing talk. If a summary of all three incidents were given, it would be unnecessary to state.
  • All links found elsewhere in the article should not be in the 'see also' section. If an article is not worth mentioning in the text, it is very seldom that it is worthy of inclusion in the see also section.
  • 'Footnotes' should be 'References', with a separate section for 'Notes'.
  • References should be in start case, not all-caps, even if the source uses all-caps
  • Some of the references are a bit weirdly formatted, such as "Flight International (Hanoi)". I do not think Flight International is published in Hanoi. Similarly "ThanhNien News (Vietnam: ThanhNien News)"—why is ThanhNien News repeated?
    • Not sure. I think this is because of the use of citation templates, in which one of the parameters is the location of the source.--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several refs lack author/publishers, and one lacks accessdates

The stuff which had been copyedited is looking good. Should be ready to pass after this is seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC) I'm going to pass the article, as it is past the GA criteria. There still is a bit more that could be done, including some style and MOS issues, but these could be regarded as beyond the GA criteria. Arsenikk (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New chairman[edit]

Pham Viet Thanh is currently the Chairman of Vietnam Airlines [1]. He took office from June 1, 2011.123.23.183.200 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_Airlines/GA1&oldid=1084086751"