Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Vladivostok Air

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vladivostok Air

I've listed this article for peer review because the author is seeking feedback and wishes to improve it to GA-Class.

Thanks,

Canglesea (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born2flie

Introduction

consider moving the sentence, "...is the largest carrier in the Russian Far East and Siberia." to the second sentence in the first paragraph, or appending it to the first sentence, as this is what seems to most significantly establish notability in the article. Additionally is such a clumsy word for the introduction. "Additionally, Vladivostok Air offers charter flights and well established helicopter services." Consider, "Vladivostok Air also offers charter flights, and has a well established helicopter service." The use of the it pronoun twice in the same sentence can be confusing. Perhaps, "The airline's main hub is...with secondary hubs at..."? The whole second paragraph is difficult and doesn't seem to meet the intent of an introduction.

History

The use of plane, airplane, and aeroplane is discouraged because of disputes between English dialect spellings. Aircraft is acceptable and to distinguish between helicopters and airplanes, fixed-wing aircraft should be used. First paragraph, I'm confused about the flight of the hydroplane...which I assume is a floatplane or some other amphibious aircraft; did it complete its first flight, or first arrive to begin service? Some of the language may be too much of a narrative, "That September day..." That whole sentence could possibly be joined and edited with the previous sentence for a complete thought in summary style.

I'll have to look at more later. --Born2flie (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canglesea

The only thing I noticed, were some typos, which I fixed, and the overuse of additive terms like "additionally, and "also". The term "additionally' appears three times in the "Recent news" section; once would suffice. Also, the section headings should be in lower case: "Jet Era and Expansion" should be "Jet era and expansion". Otherwise, well done! - Canglesea (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll get to the edits soon. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mukkakukaku

Lead/Introduction

You should consider varying the sentence structure. As it stands, the first word(s) of every sentence in the first paragraph is(are): Vladivostok Air, Vladivostok Air, It, Vladivostok Air, Its, Vladivostok Air. It seems very awkward. And I've had several GA reviews that have mentioned problems like this.

History

This section is totally awesome.
The only thing I can think of adding is some pictures. Consider: Commons:Category:Vladivostok Air.

Incidents

You should mention here that Flight 352 is the only accident or incident to take place on a Vladivostok Air flight.
For that matter, this section is extremely short -- it should either be integrated elsewhere or expanded (see previous bullet). Other ideas for expansion might be -- has it been officially compared or rated for safety against other comparable carriers in the region?

Destinations (both sections)

Might want to consider putting in a paragraph of introduction, or expanding a bit. How many flights daily/weekly/monthly per destination? Are there any special flights or routes added during holidays or high-volume periods?
If integrating incidents section, here is where it would happen.

References

Of your 22 references, more than half (14) are from vladivostokavia.ru. While using the airline's official website for information is great, it really does not lead to a balanced POV. (They really do want to make themselves look good.)
A search of the Google news archives brings up more potential sources. EG: [1] [2] [3].

Hope this has been (somewhat) helpful. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 05:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry,but this article does not meet B-class standards in my book, but then who am I? Can someone else have a look at it too, and see if there is agreement. I suggest a DOWN-GRADE until the B-class parameters are met, paricularly for grammar and Style.Petebutt (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Better sort my own Grammar out first.Petebutt (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my money where my mouth is and editted the article to what I think a B-cl;ass article should be like. It certainly doesn't poke me in the eye anymore, though other editors might still find faultPetebutt (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.