Wikipedia:Featured article review/WestJet Encore/archive1

WestJet Encore

Featured article candidates/WestJet Encore/archive1

Featured article review/WestJet Encore/archive1

Notified: Vanguard10, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Canada, Not posted on the talk page personally, but there's been a notice.

Review section

The history section looks ok, but the rest is in pretty bad shape. Extreme over-reliance on primary sources, very crufty at times (especially the details of the rewards program), quite a few uncited statements or facts that the source doesn't seem to support (CN tagged). A recurring issue is also that a source doesn't say something in its own voice, but it's in Wikivoice in the article. The prose isn't amazing either, with quite a few short paragraphs. The sentence about the toilets also seems to be there basically only to provide a DYK fact. Additionally, the destinations map is also 8 years out of date. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the main editors who originally brought the article to FA. I then left Wikipedia for about 7 years due to needing to finish school and to manage problems resulting from my parents dying. I have recently come back to find the article has the potential to update. Please be considerate and friendly by removing this review rather than having the pressure to revise the article in the next 7 days. Everyone should know that it is much more difficult to restore FA status rather than to just give the article a chance to get better in a few weeks. A pressurized deadline of 7 days is not good, particularly if there is a stated commitment to fix it, like I am making. Thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanguard10: I am not an FAR co-ordinator, but FARs will typically stay open while work is ongoing. If you are interested in fixing up the article, I suggest that you give periodic updates below (once every few weeks) on your progress. Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing and eager to work on this if there is a consensus to close this FAR based on a commitment to work on the article. I will not work with a gun to my head in the form of a 7 day deadline. One may legally keep this FAR open or remove the FA designation but that would not be the best for Wikipedia given my pledge and record of bringing articles to GA and some FA. (I am even willing to make a pledge to re-introduce a FAR if I do not make improvements to the article.) Thank you for your kind consideration of this. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: Pinging co-ords who can address this better than me. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 7-day deadline or any requirement to complete work on the article in 7 days. FARs typically remain open for as long as the review needs. DrKay (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. The original filer mentioned two weeks and then this report was a week ago so I thought that it left only 7 more days before the article gets the axe. In view of your comments, I will start to work on the article but not at a frantic pace as I work for a living. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interim report: work is in progress. Progress has been made. Plan is for continued work this week. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interim report: work continues to progress. Plan is for continued work this week. I believe that there is now no need to progress to FARC (process to remove FA) but that this FAR should remain for now. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interim report: work continues to progress. Vanguard10 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interim report: work continues to progress. Recommend ending the FAR and keep the article. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May we conclude this FAR, keep the FA, remove the review. I will continue to improve the article over time. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report. Improvement continues but request ending the Featured Article Review. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if there's still work to be done then the FAR should remain open until improvements are complete. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for a re-review, but there is no rush if progress is continuing. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I request the review end. This does not mean the article will rot. On the contrary, it will be a friendly incentive to continue. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "largest operator" peacock claim and explanation in the lead is not backed up by any sources in the body of the article. Yes it says it was the fourth largest at one point but nothing references the now-largest claim, not the fates of the other three. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This fact is true but it has been removed per your request. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "duplicate sources" yellow tag to the article. @JustARandomSquid: Have your concerns been resolved with the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thepointsguy.com should be removed as a source, as it is considered AI slop and there are other sources verifying the information. I'd also recommend replacing ref 27 as it is a press release. Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
reference 27 was a press release but also had a secondary source, so two references. I believe that 2 references are better, particularly since journalists are sometimes sloppy and get details wrong. However, I have removed reference 27. Vanguard10 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thepointsguy.com reference has been removed even though the Wikipedia article on that source does not refer to AI nor has the source been placed on the banned list. However, I have removed that citation. Vanguard10 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Points Guy was recently deprecated in an RSN discussion (1). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not really.

Some issues

Still a few paragraphs that are just one or two sentences, and a lot of links that are dead that need archive links, including at least one permanently dead one. I see a bare URL, plus the duplicate references issue mentioned above. A ton of citation needed tags, though it's possible some of them are confirmed in the article body. There's a reference in the lead, which I believe is frowned upon these days, and I'm not sure all the lead facts are supported in the body (the deadheading thing, say). Bear in mind I haven't thoroughly checked any of the references, so it's also possible not all sources are reliable (I mean, awardwallet.com doesn't exactly inspire confidence). One thing I also noticed is that the source for "Financial statistics are not released separately for WestJet Encore but reported for WestJet Airlines, Ltd., which comprises several units and the larger WestJet Airlines." is a decade old. I'd also reconsider whether all facts that are cited exclusively to primary sources are actually necessary in the article, eg. "WestJet Encore flights are numbered as flight 3100 to 3899"

It seems @Vanguard10 would very much like it to not be delisted (), but I'm not really familiar with the FAR process at all - I just saw an FA with problems and sent it here. I absolutely do not want them to feel like "having a boss stand over your head and demand work", though! I really only checked in on this at most once a week, and I wouldn't have said anything if I had seen no progress was made. That being said (and you're probably going to hate this, Vanguard), may I present the possibility of just letting the article go? You let it get delisted, and then you can work on it for as long as you like, with even less pressure than now, you'll get another featured article candidacy's comments, feedback and suggestions, and you get the sense of accomplishment from completing another FAC. Feel free to ignore me, I'm just putting that out there. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that it not be delisted. I would rather it be subject to continued review instead of immediate delisting. I will work on it more. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, go ahead. Take your time if you need it, WP:There is no deadline. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]