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 promoted by Giants2008 20:04, 7 December 2012 [1].

List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines[edit]

List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may recall from my previous nomination, Braathens was bought by its larger competitor, Scandinavian Airlines. This is an airline that really liked buying aircraft, resulting in a much longer list. Thankfully, a Swedish gentleman has written a book about all of SAS' aircraft, making research much the more easier. Hopefully the list is to your liking and not too overwhelming. Arsenikk (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Add alt text to the images, as per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT; it should briefly explain the contents of the images, not duplicate their captions. Alt text is meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser.
    • I have no idea what should be written in alt text, but I have made an attempt. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:NUM and WP:NBSP, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 737ng, use 737 ng, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 737 ng
    • Added, although it makes the source nearly impossible to read (which is why I often leave non-breaking spaces out. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing a period at the end of "SAS' operations in Norway were under the SAS Braathens brand between 2004 and 2007, here shown on a Boeing 737-600" image caption
  • "Scandinavian Airlines or SAS" how about "Scandinavian Airlines (SAS)"?
    • My though was that SAS is not an abbreviation of "Scandinavian Airlines", but rather of the full name, but if that improves readability then your proposal is better. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "previously" you are missing known as, "previously known as"
  • "Headquartered outside Stockholm, Sweden" then where is it exactly then?
  • "main hubs" what are hubs? Could that be explained
    • I have linked it. It is a very well-known term within aviation and would be extremely tedious to explain in a brief one-paragraph summary of an airline. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through" to "throughout"
  • "A notable naming exception was Huge Viking, used for a Boeing 747." remove notable per WP:NPOV and WP:OR
    • Hall's coverage of this doesn't make it OR, but I can remove it just the same as I agree it is not optimal. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding that same sentence, have "which was used ..." there instead of the last part which is just "used for a Boeing 747"
  • References need to be after a type of punctuation, as per MOS:REFPUNC, as seen as a problem in ref. 16, etc.
    • That guideline states: "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation..." Note that this indicates that if there is punctuation, then the tag should follow it. In this case the tag is referencing the first part of the sentence while a distinct reference is verifying a different piece of information and to avoid the reader having to double their verification work it is better to be as specific as possible. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the first image in livery to the right side, as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION
    • I can move it down a paragraph, but placing that image on the article would be very unaesthetic, as aircraft should always be pointing towards the middle of the screen. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the current quantity operated as of September 2012" are you sure that it was as of then, or you just say that, as it was September 2012 at the time?
    • The last four MD-87s were retired on 2 September, which also happened to be the time that the list was verified. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding that sentence, it has no reference
    • Of course it doesn't because it is not attempting to verify anything. It is stating what the creator of the list has chosen to include. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ref(s)" is missing a dot thing at end of it
  • Ref. 18 and 67 both contain WP:DASH problems, it should be an en-dash, not a hyphen, per that
    • The sources use incorrect hyphens, so it is always a dilemma if the source's title should be reproduced verbatim or corrected. I've fixed ref 18, but I honestly don't see the issue in 67. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use doubled quotes inside reference titles to avoid doubling, as per WP:MOSQUOTE and MOS:QUOTEMARKS. The problem occurs in ref. 26, 62.
    • That can again cause problems for searching for the article in question, but if it makes you happy I can always change it. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of saying stuff like "Hall: 51–52" why not say "Hall, pp.51-52" i.e. to avoid confusion, or having people needed clarification for it
    • Several reference styles use the colon, which may even be more understandable for some readers (particularly foreign) than the pp you propose. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any external links?
    • No. External links are a last resort and anything relevant is included as a reference. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any portals to add using ((portal box)), remember to add portals that related very much to this topic/subject
  • Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
    • Why? Wikipedia:Categorization states "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the Citation bot.

TBrandley 01:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the comments; they are most appreciated. Arsenikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent work, as always. While I don't have much experience with FLC-nominations, I wondered if the title correct? Shouldn't it be plural like "List of aircrafts operated by Scandinavian Airlines"? --Mentoz86 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft" (just like coincidentally the plural of fly is fly in Norwegian). Arsenikk (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments really nice list.
  • "Carlzon" livery or "Carlzon livery"? Be consistent.
  • "The aircraft livery were thus painted..." not sure that reads right to me. "The aircraft were painted with a livery including..."? Not sure.
  • Don't think you need to link "shield".
  • "which saw white body " -> "saw a white body"?
  • "and dotted with while aircraft" don't understand.
    • This is what I'm trying to explain. I've tried to explain a bit better, and changing "while" to "white" hopefully helped a bit. Arsenikk (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SAS has since 2002 had selected" not great. "Since 2002, SAS has painted selected ..."
  • "DNL on their side had" no need for "on their side" really.
    • Removed unnecessary superfluous redundancy. Arsenikk (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foo Viking" could you give a couple of examples?
  • "mythology, huge was the quickest of everything" do you mean "Huge"? and what is "quickest of everything"? Do you mean the quickest of the Gods.
  • "Viking references, he also proposed that the Viking name" a bit repetitive.
  • "but ownership was by the time of delivery " -> "but, by the time of delivery, ownership..."
  • Not sure there's a need to have Luftwaffe in italics.
  • "could not be used during winter" could you explain why?
  • "intercontinental traffic" -> "intercontinental routes"?
  • "One aircraft crashed..." well, it was destroyed in a mid-air collision so perhaps be a little more descriptive.
  • "They were .. but was..." grammar fail.
  • "Some of the aircraft were from 1962" -> "From 1962 some of the aircraft were..."
  • "airlines highest cruise speed though history" airline's highest cruise speed in history.
  • "The aircraft was.." were.
  • "optimized...optimized" repetitive.
  • In the McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 entry, link NYC first time round.
  • ", the planes " would stick with "the aircraft".
  • Dash 8 on the Saab 2000 line is a dab.
  • "started planning revamping"... awkward triple verb and ing ing...
  • "in an offensive attempt" not sure you need "offensive" here.
  • "it was grounded after the September 11 attacks" why?

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fro the comments. Arsenikk (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ure weclom. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "newest intercontinental aircraft" I think Intercontinental should be capitalised
    • I check a number of sources and two dictionaries, none of which capitalize the word. As far as I can see it isn't a proper noun, so I have kept it it in lower case. Arsenikk (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem I wasn't sure myself, so though it was worth asking. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SAS Commuter was created in 1984 to operate regional airliners, various models which remained in use until 2010." I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say, a word might be missing?
    • Rephrased slightly, hope it reads better now. Arsenikk (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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