Wikipedia:Peer review/Emirates (airline)/archive1

Emirates (airline)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, given how transparent Emirates' board and inner workings is, and how well known the airline is, I'm surprised that the airline is not up to GA standard.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article is not ready for GAN. Here is a short, incomplete list of problems. I don't see your name in the list of significant contributors here. I hope you are planning to work on the article.

• The tools at the top of this review page find 12 dead urls in the citations and a link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

• The article has a major clean-up tag at the top of the "History" section. The issues raised by this tag and the "citation needed" tags should be addressed.

• Some paragraphs in the article are without sources. For example, the second and fourth paragraphs of the "Origins" section lack sources even though they make claims that include dates and statistics. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that is unusual, and at least one citation for every paragraph.

• The external videos, if used at all, belong in the "External links" section rather than in the main text. Likewise, the link to Wikinews.

• Many of the citations, such as citation 101, are incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found.

• Where feasible, lists should be turned into regular prose paragraphs. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.

• Images should not overlap sections or displace edit buttons or create text sandwiches. WP:MOS#Images has details.

• The Manual of Style frowns upon extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs, which give articles a choppy look and feel. Two solutions are to expand or merge the shorties.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)