Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/EasyJet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] EasyJet

I've done a large amount of work on this article over the past few days and would appreciate some feedback on the article in general. Specific comments regarding the prose, layout and referencing also welcome.


Thanks,

Wexcan (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 125.209.94.12

I dont like flags in the destinations lists.(125.209.94.12 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Flags have been there for quite a while, not sure who added them or when. Anyone else got any opinions on them? Wexcan (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think because they are on a separate page to the main article the flags are fine. Bthebest (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factotem

First impressions in the time I have available...

  • Nice job;
  • A few unreferenced paragraphs (e.g. the first two in the controversy section);
  • A lot of one sentence paragraphs (e.g. Controversy section, Fleet strategy and aircraft orders, etc). Can these be amalgamated larger and fewer paragraphs?
  • Some short sections (e.g. Previously operated, In-Flight Entertainment, possibly even Strategy). Can these be merged into parent/neighbouring sections?
  • Section headers should generally be in sentence case (see Manual_of_Style#Article_titles.2C_headings_and_sections);

You might also be interested in No-Frills Carriers: Revolution or Evolution? published by the CAA. Not specifically about easyJet but a useful source for the growth in the low frills industry and, if memory serves me correctly, it does reference easyJet specifically in places. Hope this helps. --FactotEm (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Haven't got round to properly looking at the controversy section yet since it's not as simple as the rest, but will keep your points in mind. Will see what can be done about everything else. Wexcan (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bthebest

Overall, a very good article, very clear and informative. My points:

  • The introduction is a bit long. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs probably aren't necessary here.
  • As with Factotem, the Strategy section is a bit of a stub and could be merged with History-Business.
  • Short sentences in Fleet section are okay on a short term basis as infomation develops, but should be condensed after a while.
  • Services section is very good. Bthebest (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ASJ94

I like it, but I agree with Bthebest that the introduction is a bit extensive. I also enjoyed the large amount of pictures. In my opinion, a page can't have enough pictures. ASJ94 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)