Wikipedia:Peer review/Pakistan International Airlines/archive1

Pakistan International Airlines edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it has gone through major changes and should be reviewd so that it can further prompted for a FA.

Thanks, User:Yousaf465 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs):

This is an interesting article but a lot more work is needed before FAC can be seriously considered. The big problem is the lack of citations. One would expect to see over 100 reliable sources cited for an article of this length. For example, every "fact" listed in Marketing and sponsorship and Achievements and recognition should provided a source. The Lead section is too short and does not adequately summarise the rest of the article. About four short paragraphs are needed here. The article is very wordy and should be checked for redundancy. Is every single word necessary? This sort of very close attention to detail is needed to meet Criterion 1. for featured articles. I see there is a link to a Main Article that does not exist, (ie. a red link) this should be corrected or deleted. I can see that a lot of very hard work, time and enthusiasm has gone into this, but I recommend that an editor, new to the article, is asked to copy-edit it. I am sorry if this sounds negative, but these points would be quickly raised at a FAC nomination as grounds for opposing promotion. Graham Colm ^Talk 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton: Numerous problems, some of which may be touched on in Graham's summary above.

Lack of citations: The article is woefully under-referenced. There are several citation tags in place, many more could be added.
Most of the references are improperly formatted. Minimally, formats require title, publisher, url and access date. Author and date should be given where possible. See WP:Cite web for guidance; you don't have to use the templates themselves, but follow the instructions as to minimum information.
Lists: there are seven lists in the text, and that's way too many. Some, for example "Incidents and accidents", should be converted to prose. Others, like "Codeshares", would be better as appendices at the end of the text. Although some lists, especially those involving numeric information, are inevitable and useful, bullet-point lists of fctoids should in general be avoided.
Some sections seem underdeveloped. Graham has pointed out the "Retired" section, which consists solely of a redlink to a main article. The Destinations section is a short list of services starting in 2009. These snippets do not require sections.
There are MOS violations, for example use of boldface in the text for emphasis, an image placed under a level-3 section heading, and text squeezed between images
There are jargon terms, for example "wet lease" and "dry lease". These need proper explanation.
There is POV language, for example: "The Balochistan tail is a striking and colourful reflection of robust activity..." This sounds very much like a verbatim quote from somewhere. Unless you use quote marks and specify sources, you will be accused of plagiarism.
I concur with Graham's view that a thorough copyedit is needed, but I believe this should be done after the more basic tasks of increasing citations and restructuring. It is unrealistic to expect that all these things can be done quickly, but there is no reason why, in time, this should not be developed as a quality article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]