Talk:Holidaybreak
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Notability Claim: This is one of the largest companies in the UK. PGL (company) is already considered notable, and that's only about 1/9th of this company's revenue!! Keycamp and Eurocamp are very well known brands, and as I add to this article and it is added to, it will be a good resource. SmokingNewton (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you've suffered because there was previously a dreadfully pov advert here that looked like it had been put in by the HB marketing department.
Where is HB in the list of largest companies, btw? what is meant by large? it's a minnow against Cendant, First break and TUI and that's just in the same industry. The brands are not all that well known, even where they are market leaders, their competitors seem better known. 90.195.131.21 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Assessment- Start class[edit]
This one is difficult to gauge. So using the definintion below I think it is more than a stub- but borderline.
Start -An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. It provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Much much more- turnover, history, geography.
- More detailed criteria
- The article has a usable amount of good content- but is not comprehensive
- The article must satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability. Discussed above
- Biography articles must satisfy fundamental BLP policies.
- The article must provide sources to establish verifiability.
- The article can be weak in many areas. Here all areas
- Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic.
- MoS compliance dubious.
- May only address one aspect of the topic
- May ramble and include superfluous material
- Way forward to a C
- Substantial expansion
- Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised and checked
- POVs, and original research should be culled.
- Using a similar article as a model, the article should be given structure
- Using a similar article as a model, the will also need substantial improvements in content.
I would dispute that this is Low importance. Economic articles are too few and given the ubiquity of the subsidaries more needs to be explained. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)