This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kenya Airways article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Kenyan English and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Kenya Airways has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of head office, Airport North Road,
Embakasi, Nairobi, Kenya be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Nairobi may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The image depicting the KQ Boeing 767 in the new livery is from airliners.net
Was the image owners permission sought? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiplagat ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 September 2005.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kq 787.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody! I'm currently improving (at least trying) the Kenya Airways article which, before I started editing it, seemed to me somewhat disordered, including out-of-place and unreferenced information, as well as irrelevant sections (some of which I already removed). I'm trying to do my best at improving this article (I'm sure I'm not the only one), but this is a hard task and I need some collaboration regarding references. So, if you have any interesting reference please let me know and I'll include its contents into the article. Despite I'm particularly interested in people closely linked to the matter (say, for instance, Kenyan people), everybody's collaboration will be welcome. Thanks for your cooperation.
Regards -- Jetstreamer ( talk) 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This article has too many references. First it makes no sense to place the same <ref> behind almost every single sentence; for example references 4, 13, 18, 19. Second we don't need a ref for every single seat configuration, a one-time ref to the fleet page, 36 in that case, is enough. 37-42 are not needed. Third and worst: The references for the accidents must be a joke. Since there is a final, official report, it is the only source we need, because it contains all known facts. And since both accidents have their own, well referenced, articles anyway, a single ref should do the job more then pretty. Best regards, -- R.Schuster ( talk) 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This is my proposal to handle the references. The numbers of the references are based on this version of the article.
Best regards, -- R.Schuster ( talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the article with the Citation guidelines. It is stated there that “A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter.” Unsurprisingly, it is also stated there that that is not a Wikipedia policy. The cleanup tag is hence unnecessary at this point of the discussion. On the contrary, the article was tagged as ‘Under construction’, i.e., it is not in its final version, on the basis of the concerns we already discussed upon. Regards.-- Jetstreamer ( talk) 22:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Excessive sourcing is probably the least harmful problem that might afflict an article - if every wikipedia article had a surfeit of sources I'd be a very happy man. Feel free to work on tidying up citations if you think that is a good use of your time, but I don't think a badge of shame at the top of the article is appropriate, just because a handful of sentences have three references rather than two. (As an aside: If a phrase is particularly controversial, or if you want to summarise something about a group and each item in the group has a separate source, those might be reasons for having more citations; although I don't think there are any of those issues in this article)— bobrayner ( talk) 08:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
I agree with Bobrayner. I honestly don't like the tone that the short argument went through, but I highly recommend cleaning-up the article (without tagging it). I've seen multiple references on a simple statements, where there's no conflicts between them. Just pick whatever reliable source there is, and remove what's unneeded. Any comments, disagreements, and opinions are welcome :). Happy editing everyine. ~ AdvertAdam talk 11:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vibhijain ( talk · contribs) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Please remove the "See also" section or list a related article. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Article passed. Congrats! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
All issues have been addressed. I hope the article is now of your liking. Kind regards.-- Jetstreamer ( talk) 11:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Kenya Airways has taken delivery of a third Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft.Archived 8 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine
Kenya Airways has taken delivery of its second Boeing 787 as it steps up efforts to expand and modernize its fleet.
-- Jetstreamer Talk 13:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This [1] edit and the related previous ones [2] have been reverted on the basis of WP:VNT and the preferred use of official sources for fleet tables, as previously established in WP:AIRLINE discussions. Please discuss here or start a new thread at WT:AIRLINE if there's any disagreement. Boeing 777s are still in the fleet according to the official website.-- Jetstreamer Talk 14:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
All of Ethiopian airlines' fatal crashes combined gives us 337 fatalities (flight 961 was hijacked, flight 904 was caused by pilot error, and flight 604 was caused by a bird strike). However, according to the ASN, all of Kenya Airway's fatal crashes (there were only two, respectively) combined gave a total of 283 fatalities, which is 54 less than EA! Unlike EA though, both of KQ crashes were both causes by pilot error. I don't know whether or not the cause of a crash contributes to the record's ranking, though I'm pretty sure it does, but then again KA had less fatalities than EA. So, does Kenya Airways also have a good (and possibly even better) safety record? Tigerdude9 ( talk) 21:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I have tagged the "history" section for reorganization due to its lengthy chronology. The existing GAR request tag is appropriate as this is a possible WP:MoS layout issue (GA criterion 1b). I'm not nominating it for GA delisting just yet; someone with topic-level expertise should come edit this section so we can get rid of the GAR request tag! -- Nemoschool ( talk) 17:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to see some more recent content in the article. The 'Future Plans' section talks about the 10-year Mawingu plan made in 2011-12, that was scrapped in 2015 after it was found to be failing. There are news reports from 2 weeks ago that Kenya Airways was close to collapse. It is difficult to assess content-wise because in fact some of the recent events is almost too recent to include. The currency of some the article should be looked at to maintain GA status. Aeonx ( talk) 21:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kenya Airways article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Kenyan English and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Kenya Airways has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of head office, Airport North Road,
Embakasi, Nairobi, Kenya be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Nairobi may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The image depicting the KQ Boeing 767 in the new livery is from airliners.net
Was the image owners permission sought? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiplagat ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 September 2005.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kq 787.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody! I'm currently improving (at least trying) the Kenya Airways article which, before I started editing it, seemed to me somewhat disordered, including out-of-place and unreferenced information, as well as irrelevant sections (some of which I already removed). I'm trying to do my best at improving this article (I'm sure I'm not the only one), but this is a hard task and I need some collaboration regarding references. So, if you have any interesting reference please let me know and I'll include its contents into the article. Despite I'm particularly interested in people closely linked to the matter (say, for instance, Kenyan people), everybody's collaboration will be welcome. Thanks for your cooperation.
Regards -- Jetstreamer ( talk) 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This article has too many references. First it makes no sense to place the same <ref> behind almost every single sentence; for example references 4, 13, 18, 19. Second we don't need a ref for every single seat configuration, a one-time ref to the fleet page, 36 in that case, is enough. 37-42 are not needed. Third and worst: The references for the accidents must be a joke. Since there is a final, official report, it is the only source we need, because it contains all known facts. And since both accidents have their own, well referenced, articles anyway, a single ref should do the job more then pretty. Best regards, -- R.Schuster ( talk) 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This is my proposal to handle the references. The numbers of the references are based on this version of the article.
Best regards, -- R.Schuster ( talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the article with the Citation guidelines. It is stated there that “A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter.” Unsurprisingly, it is also stated there that that is not a Wikipedia policy. The cleanup tag is hence unnecessary at this point of the discussion. On the contrary, the article was tagged as ‘Under construction’, i.e., it is not in its final version, on the basis of the concerns we already discussed upon. Regards.-- Jetstreamer ( talk) 22:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Excessive sourcing is probably the least harmful problem that might afflict an article - if every wikipedia article had a surfeit of sources I'd be a very happy man. Feel free to work on tidying up citations if you think that is a good use of your time, but I don't think a badge of shame at the top of the article is appropriate, just because a handful of sentences have three references rather than two. (As an aside: If a phrase is particularly controversial, or if you want to summarise something about a group and each item in the group has a separate source, those might be reasons for having more citations; although I don't think there are any of those issues in this article)— bobrayner ( talk) 08:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
I agree with Bobrayner. I honestly don't like the tone that the short argument went through, but I highly recommend cleaning-up the article (without tagging it). I've seen multiple references on a simple statements, where there's no conflicts between them. Just pick whatever reliable source there is, and remove what's unneeded. Any comments, disagreements, and opinions are welcome :). Happy editing everyine. ~ AdvertAdam talk 11:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vibhijain ( talk · contribs) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Please remove the "See also" section or list a related article. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Article passed. Congrats! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
All issues have been addressed. I hope the article is now of your liking. Kind regards.-- Jetstreamer ( talk) 11:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Kenya Airways has taken delivery of a third Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft.Archived 8 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine
Kenya Airways has taken delivery of its second Boeing 787 as it steps up efforts to expand and modernize its fleet.
-- Jetstreamer Talk 13:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This [1] edit and the related previous ones [2] have been reverted on the basis of WP:VNT and the preferred use of official sources for fleet tables, as previously established in WP:AIRLINE discussions. Please discuss here or start a new thread at WT:AIRLINE if there's any disagreement. Boeing 777s are still in the fleet according to the official website.-- Jetstreamer Talk 14:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
All of Ethiopian airlines' fatal crashes combined gives us 337 fatalities (flight 961 was hijacked, flight 904 was caused by pilot error, and flight 604 was caused by a bird strike). However, according to the ASN, all of Kenya Airway's fatal crashes (there were only two, respectively) combined gave a total of 283 fatalities, which is 54 less than EA! Unlike EA though, both of KQ crashes were both causes by pilot error. I don't know whether or not the cause of a crash contributes to the record's ranking, though I'm pretty sure it does, but then again KA had less fatalities than EA. So, does Kenya Airways also have a good (and possibly even better) safety record? Tigerdude9 ( talk) 21:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I have tagged the "history" section for reorganization due to its lengthy chronology. The existing GAR request tag is appropriate as this is a possible WP:MoS layout issue (GA criterion 1b). I'm not nominating it for GA delisting just yet; someone with topic-level expertise should come edit this section so we can get rid of the GAR request tag! -- Nemoschool ( talk) 17:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to see some more recent content in the article. The 'Future Plans' section talks about the 10-year Mawingu plan made in 2011-12, that was scrapped in 2015 after it was found to be failing. There are news reports from 2 weeks ago that Kenya Airways was close to collapse. It is difficult to assess content-wise because in fact some of the recent events is almost too recent to include. The currency of some the article should be looked at to maintain GA status. Aeonx ( talk) 21:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)