Talk:Reasons for the failure of British Caledonian

Concern

I'm concerned that this article contains a large amount of original research. It seems to make a lot of assertions that are at many times dubious yet it provides absolutely no citations establishing where those ideas came from and if they are credible. -Drdisque 22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you check out the references cited in the article, you'll find where the information has been sourced. I also don't agree with your claim that it contains a lot of original research, nor that there are lots of dubious statements. On the contrary, in my opinion it is a well-researched and well-documented, as well as well-balanced article. Pimpom123 16:26, 12 November 2007 (GMT)

I agree that the article could be improved. However, in my opinion there are sufficient citations. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that all statements in that article have been adequately referenced. Hence, I totally disagree that these statements are unsourced. I have therefore removed the second tag. Pimpom123 11:33, 11 December 2007 (GMT)

Dude, you responded to yourself. 24.34.183.7 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Have added another reference linking to Flight International's on-line archives explaining the restrictive nature of the 1970s Anglo-French bilateral air treaty and how this affected the launch of BCal's Gatwick-Paris flights in November 1971.ttd_369 12:48, 05 February 2008 (GMT)

Have added a further reference linking to Flight International's on-line archives elaborating BOAC/BA's opposition to the CAA licensing BCal to compete with the Corporation on London-Singapore in 1972, seeking to influence the UK and Singapore governments' decision on designating BCal as the second UK flag carrier on that route.ttd_369 10:22, 07 February 2008 (GMT)

Reorganising the article

Have now completed reorganising this sub-article - incl. the linked main article - a bit over the recent Bank Holiday week-end. Hope the result makes for better reading. Another way to reduce the complete article's size is to use the same referencing system as in the Air Europe article as well as to "tighten" it a bit further or, alternatively, to subsume it into a newly created, separate sub-article for the period when thinks at BCal began going downhill (ie sections entitled Unexpected reversal of fortunes to British Airways wins the day - to be found in the sub-article entitled British Caledonian in the 1980s). Maybe, other Wikipedians with an interest in aviation articles could help with this. This sub-article (and the linked main article as well) contain[s] a lot of detailed information that I personally consider very informative and therefore valuable. So, someone who knows how to tighten it further without simply deleting all that info, without changing the meaning completely (by leaving just a few disjointed sentences) and without making spelling or grammatical mistakes should preferably do this. Aviator369 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've further tightened the page's overall organization by grouping together successive headings that can be classed as directly interrelated, and converted these into subheadings below the heading that introduces their substance initially. In a couple of consecutve cases a separate subheading struck me as uncalled-for and cumbersome, given the structural continuity of their texts, and so I've removed these subheadings and appended their text to that of the preceding subheading. None of the pre-existing text has been removed and only in a couple of cases have I added a couple of words to assist clarity or continuity. For me, these modifications substantially improve the overall integrity and digestibility of the page's topic, given its very large number of sections.

I've also pruned your capitilizing of words in the titles of your headings, which (as you'll be able to confirm from other pages) was out of keeping with Wikipedia's practice. Elagabalicus (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Major copy edit

I'm doing a major copy edit on this article which looks likely to take me a couple of days at least. I'd appreciate being the only editor on it during that time. I'd also be grateful for any feedback you might have on edits that I progressively publish. Please let me know if this interferes with any plans you might have for the article. All the best. Dropbear2 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)