Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World's largest airlines/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 22:47, 26 November 2013 [1].

World's largest airlines[edit]

Featured list candidates/World's largest airlines/archive1

Nominator(s): FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion this list offers the opportunity to compare large airlines by different categories, is easily comprehensible and does not an overload an average reader with content. I put a lot of effort into this article to bring it to its current state and I think it's about time for this article to get promoted. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Arsenikk ^(talk)

As the article stands now it has substantial work before it meets the criteria.

The lead need to be substantially longer, perhaps five times the length. It should discuss the various definitions and why certain airlines are better at some criteria than others (for instance, long-haul airlines will perform relatively better than low-cost airlines on passenger-km and opposite in pax).
Please Do Not Capitalize Every Word In Section Headers.
Every table should have a brief introductory text, which among other mentions the unit which is being used (thus eliminating the need to have it in the section headers).
What is the criteria used to determine accumulated figures for airlines groups? It is airlines operated under the same main brand (e.g. Delta Air Lines / Delta Connection), or is it based on ownership groups (like International Airlines Group, which according to its article is the world's seventh-largest)? The article needs a clear definition of what it counts as a "airline". Alternatively it would make alternative listings for groups and airline brands.
To be honest, I was expecting more than top-ten lists. Perhaps top 25 would be more suitable? The structure (although it isn't particularly well-formated) of list of largest airlines in Europe is perhaps more well-suited, as it makes it easier to compare airlines and easier to include all.
From an accessibility point of view, the use of flags in this way is problematic, as only some viewing platforms are available and it requires a specialized knowledge of flags to identify countries. If you feel that country is a defining aspect of an airline and wish to include it, it should be listed in a separate column.
I would have included a table for airlines by revenue, as this is a frequently-cited size comparison (even though it does favor airlines in high-cost countries).
Fleet size needs to be dated.
Please ensure that images have a consistent size. It would be nice with one or two images in the lead section.
All the links in "see also" are listed in the navbox, so they are redundant to have in the "see also" section.
I don't see the relevance of including an external link to IATA.
Frankly, i would have preferred this article to be named "list of the largest airlines", although do not move the article until this FLC is concluded.

I will leave these comments for the time being and may have additional comments when these have been resolved. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the list, but I don't like that it includes only top 10. For such a topic, much more than top 10 is necessary. Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Why do you continuously link air line articles? Other than in the lead, articles should only be linked once, per MOS:LINK
In "By Number of Destinations," "Delta air Lines" should be "Delta Air Lines".
The lead does not summarize the article very well. It should information on every section.
To be a featured list, the article must have Alternative text for images.

CrowzRSA 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the nominator hasn't responded at all to the November 3rd comments and its been 22 days... CrowzRSA 22:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.