Talk:Skytrax/Archives/2019

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I note that this article has been classed as List for Project purposes, but while it contains lists of Skytrax Awards and Rankings, I think it is actually a standard article, of Start quality. Opinions? SeoR (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I note questions about objectivity raised in the article. Two points really do need citation, but on a quick check on the company's website (https://www.airlinequality.com/), they accept reviews with and without evidence of travel. They do mark these transparently as Verified or Not, but it is not clear if this status impacts the outcoming ratings. I hope someone can look into this further. SeoR (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Since the page is protected I won't just revert, but please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Global Travel Geek. @Bradv: courtesy ping.

The criticisms the sockfarm are trying to remove are essentially these:

1. "Its annual awards, widely republished in the industry, which the company presents as the pure results of "passengers" voting, have been criticized as biased, including suggestions that some have been awarded to airiness who had paid Skytrax, for consulting or other services.^[1]"

   The article cited describes a review of Skytrax by the UK Advertising Standards Authority, and criticizes the company's claim that reviews on the site were checked and authenticated because the company could not provide evidence. However, there is no suggestion in this article that Skytrax's reviews are "biased", nor that any have been published in exchange for compensation. This passage should be removed from the article.

2. "In 2012, the online investigations company KwikChex filed five complaints with the UK Advertising Standards Authority related to statements on the Skytrax web site describing the volume and reliability of their reviews as well as the official status and update frequency of their ratings. The ASA ruled that there was no evidence that Skytrax had followed the robust procedures it claimed it had in place to check all reviews were genuine. Although Skytrax argued that every review underwent a four-stage authentication process, it said it was unable to provide proof it had followed its own procedures as customer emails were deleted 24 hours after a review was submitted.^[2] The authority upheld all five complaints and Skytrax agreed to modify some promotional wording.^[3][4]"

   This seems to be a reasonable reading of the sources. I cannot access the SmartCompany source (I'm looking for an archive) but all the claims in the prose seem to be backed up by the other two sources anyway.

So the bit in the lede should be significantly reworded, and the second should be restored. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thanks for the second set of eyes. As I explained on my talk page, I saw a sentence in the lead that did not stand up to verification by the cited source, and a bunch of people edit warring over it without discussing. I've released the full protection as the sockpuppets were blocked, but I'm not okay with leaving this the way it was either. – bradv🍁 14:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I basically agree with the above. My objection is to just removing

1. "Its annual awards, widely republished in the industry, which the company presents as the pure results of "passengers" voting, have been criticized as biased, including suggestions that some have been awarded to airiness who had paid Skytrax, for consulting or other services.^[5]"

from the lede if it remains in the body of the article. The lede is just a summary of the article's contents. If it goes from the lede it should go from the article. But I think that there have been criticisms within the industry (including some airlines) about how Skytrax reaches its ratings is not in dispute, and that shoud be reflected in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the process of reviewing that section, see below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

While we are discussing this I am adding a sentence to the lede to accurately reflect the current contents of the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• I found the SmartCompany source and relinked it in the article. It doesn't really say anything that isn't said by the other two. I also had a look at the Simpliflying article we're using as a citation for "In 2011, Skytrax's award of a 5-star rating to Hainan Airlines subsequent to a consulting project that it completed for the airline raised doubts about the objectivity of the award." Yes, the article discusses doubts about objectivity, but it says nothing about whatever consulting project Wikipedia is alleging is connected. Also, the source is clearly indicated as the opinion blog of the CEO of an airline marketing and reputation management firm, and reads to me like a hit job from a competitor. I don't think we should be using it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, (ironically), I doubt the objectivity of our "doubts about objectivity" section. It's starting with a conclusion that the sources don't make, then connecting only tangentially related articles to back up that conclusion (WP:SYNTH). Too many of these sources are travel blogs. We need better sources for this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the real issue with the article is that anyone can raise doubts. It's whether they can substantiate those doubts that should concern us. The fact that airline X paid Skytrax for consulting services and then went up in Skytrax ratings might concern some people, and they might write about it, but how do you prove causality? I think the issue for Wikipedia is whether we should include that doubts have been raised (easily sourced) such as the para on Hainan, or only include those things which have clearly been shown to be valid, such as the ASA ruling.

My feeling is that the first two paras of that section should go unless they can be sourced better. The Skift one could also be better sourced. As for the bit on Turkish, I think it's enough to say: "In 2019, after its 2018 decision to no longer participate in Skytrax audits, Turkish Airlines was downgraded from a four to a three-star carrier." We could add "which caused some surprise in the aviation community".