Talk:Royal Brunei Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Royal Brunei Airlines article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Aviation Portal

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(comments)

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Airlines WikiProject

	This article is supported by the Southeast Asia WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Royal Brunei Airlines was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-03-31

1 Improvement drive
2 Profit figures
3 Requested move
4 Good Article Nomination
5 Failed "good article" nomination

[edit] Improvement drive

Brunei is currently nominated on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Come and support it with your vote! --Fenice 18:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Profit figures

I moved this here from the main article. Royal Brunei is a private limited firm so I don't see how anyone can back up statements of "gross profit of $70million".

After the fourth quarter of 2005, Royal Brunei made their first profit after operating in debt for five years. This marked the success of their re-structuring exercise.^{[citation needed]} By the late quarter of 2006, Royal Brunei made a gross profit of $70 million dollars. ^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I propose that Royal Brunei be renamed to Royal Brunei Airlines. Not only does this sound unprofessional and 'slang-like', but the Airlines is part of their name, as stated in the first three words of the article introduction. I have some references and reasons:

A Google Search on Royal Brunei Airlines. Please note the first non-sponsored listing: the official site, 'Welcome to Royal Brunei Airlines' and

Royal Brunei Airlines - 4 Star Airlines rating by Skytrax.
The Royal Brunei Airlines official site. See the Boarding Pass promotional advertisement -

Boarding Pass Promotion With Royal Brunei Airlines
You can always type in Royal Brunei and be redirected to Royal Brunei Airlines.
Skytrax Rating - 4 stars. Heading is 'Royal Brunei Airlines'.
Royal Brunei is used as slang just as China Eastern is used as slang for China Eastern Airways/Airlines.
Skyscanner lists them as Royal Brunei Airlines.

I hope this is enough. Sorry to all those edit conflicts, I was first to suggest (see User talk:Gnangarra).

Social Studiously 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation. You can voice your opinion in Discussion, below.

[edit] Support

Support - see my argument above, that started off the debate. Social Studiously 13:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - appears to be the correct name of the airline according to their main page [1] which is proudly titled "Welcome to Royal Brunei Airlines" Orderinchaos78 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seems like a no-brainer to me. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Discussion

Since this article opens with Royal Brunei Airlines would it not be more logical for the article to be at Royal Brunei Airlines. According to http://www.bruneiair.com/aboutus/history.asp the airlines own web site states Royal Brunei Airlines, the country’s flag carrier,.... What thoughts do the regular editors of this article have. note: I'm happy to do move and dab all the links if the consensus is to move. Gnan garra 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Royal Brunei to Royal Brunei Airlines as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Result

[edit] Good Article Nomination

I have nominated Royal Brunei for Good Article Status. I have read the What is a good article? section of Wikipedia very well, and when I matched this up to the Royal Brunei article, I determined it to fit the criteria. I'm not sure if I'm too 'new' to list it for good article status, but I do really believe it fits the criteria. Social Studiously ^{My Editor Review! -} 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My Interpretation

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is well written.

a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:

a Pass/Fail:

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 31, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: no, one-sentence paragraphs, etc.

2. Factually accurate?: practically no references

3. Broad in coverage?: no, stub sections

4. Neutral point of view?: yes

5. Article stability? yes

6. Images?: yes

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Todor →Bozhinov 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/y/Talk%7ERoyal_Brunei_Airlines_dba8.html"